Printable View
I read an article on a Russian news site (though the link is in english) and I wanted to know what people on this site might think about it. As an American citizen, I have a lot of different feelings reading it. But I am leery to trust them because of the subjectivity of all media. I am very interested to know other people's opinions.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/112613-0/ (http://www.pravda.ru)
luck/life
I think:
1. you should capitalize your topic properly.
2. don't trust a word from any mass media anywhere.
This is an extremal viewpoint. Contemporary Russian probably will find funny it's style and pathos from the Soviet era. And I don't think that author care much about logic, facts and digits. A usual brainwashing. You can find many political articles of the same quality in, say, Wall Street Journal.
Though Russians would definitely not support possible war of USA against Iran unless Iran used nuclear weapon first.
This topic should be moved to Politics.
Personally, I think that US will finally deliver a blow against Iran with possible aid of Israel. Divide and conquer policy on the Middle East dictates that. Iran now is among the strongest countries of the region and even though it is populated mostly by Shiis unlike the rest of islamic countries its influence is great. Iran falls out of the general scheme. Any other country in the Middle East can be controlled by the US. Iran's become too strong - that's its main problem. Thus, it will be bombed.
I can only hope that US will pay dearly for this. This act of aggression will place the US itself at the top of the list of the terrorist regimes that need to be wiped out from the face of Earth.
I couldn't disagree more with that prognosis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
First, the history has shown that if the US "delivers a blow", it does so without Israel. It's been assumed that the controversial Israeli politics would stir too much international unrest, so it would be difficult to win the support for the war.
Second, the history has shown that Israel bombs out [nuclear] objects it dislikes in the neighboring countries whenever it feels right. The US then provides the necessary weapons to Israel.
I think the latter scenario is much more likely to happen than the former. In order not to find itself on "the top of the list of the terrorist regimes", and due to the moderate success in the two wars it's been already engaged, the US would not assault Iran.
Thanks to all who answered this, I was really curious what others' opinions are. Sorry - should have placed in Politics. Also should've capitalized the country names correctly, sorry for laziness.
Personally I am just about always against war. In 2001 many people here didn't like my non-war talk. =) I've always loved my country on the level that I think makes sense to do. Some people in the usa like everywhere, take it more seriously. Too seriously? I cannot say. One opinion says that patriotism is a form of control. The other says it is the way a country stays strong and moral. I can't fully agree with either. One could say I am in the middle.
But when I first read this article, I doubted the truth of the story. Then I verified that the first part, shipping of weaponry, seems to be true. But the second part I had not read so carefully, and I think it's subjectivity cancels out the validity of what else was said.
I say I doubted my feelings on this, because I know my country has a history of not telling us pertinent facts, until it is too late. Some of what was said about the Iranian deposed and placement of a US associate in power there - I wonder if I hear 'the ring of truth.'
But I was shocked when I read the ending. I was under the impression that the US was one of a group of countries that were concerned about this Iranian nuclear switchback play. Last I heard from US news (which is so different from Novaya and RUS news imho), Russia was talking to US about how to resolve the Iran situation.
And there's another thing. I read a number of weeks back that Ahmadinejad had made a response to US fears that his nuke enrichment was intended for violence. In it he says (I'm paraphrasing), 'Its impossible that we could make nuclear weapons because using them would be against our state religion of Islam.'
This statement implies that the remainder of the planet should trust in Iranian religious dedication and piety to be the buffer between them and potential million-degree thermoradioactive disintegration.
I don't distrust in Iranian religious zeal, but it's like if I asked to sit next to the President with a loaded gun, and I said, "It's silly for you to think I'd shoot him with this gun because it's against my religion." Should I expect to command such trust from the world around me?
Well, let's get realistic here. Even if Iran makes a nuclear bomb why everyone is so hysterical about it? Pakistan is an islamic state awash with Taliban and it has nuclear weapons and its political situation is far worse than one in Iran. Why don't everyone go into hysterics about it? India, China, North Korea are nuclear states. No one would use such weapons unless provoked but having nukes will make Iran 'untouchable'. This will mean the end of USA dictate in the Middle East.
This is a completely wrong analogy in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
It's more like a big guy with a loaded gun (USA) who attacks anyone who probably has a gun, or who wants to have a gun, or whom he just doesn't like. Someone definitely has to stop him: he's completely out of control.The problem is no one can at the moment.
@ gRomoZeKa:
Really? Out of control and must be stopped? Is the world of the opinion that Iran should be ignored? Because it's okay with me, if we ignore them. I think some other people on Earth will be a little nervous, though. Certainly, you'll not find me trying to eradicate Iran. Neither, though, will you find me working on development of nuclear power beneath a mountain.
And what should the US be doing, instead? Certainly, if your suggestion merits it, I'll be the first to write it up and suggest it to local politicians. However, I think it is hard for the US to do anything, anymore, without being hated by someone - this is exactly why I would like to know what we *could* do, without being hated for it.
And to get back to my analogy: America has a gun. It's visible on our hip, if you will excuse the abstraction. So is Russia's. So is France's, UK's, Germany's, China's, etc. It exists in the form of various weaponry, some nuclear, some not. A nuke doesn't necessarily trump conventional weaponry because one has to get the thing off before it can be a big, devastating nuke. Until then it's just radio-reactive chemo-paste at the bottom of a Dr. Evil-style mountain bunker missile base. (Sorry, I'm trying to picture it and it's hard not to draw James Bond/Austin Powers visions of this thing. A missile base in a mountain? Seriously..) So, America, like every other armed country, has several weapons, but the general theory is that the other countries already *know* that. ex: I believe that there was a lot of talk between US and Russia at some point in the past about how many nukes each one had that could hit the other, and how to take that number down.. My impression is that most of these countries know what kind of arsenal most of these other countries are working with. And I thought, that the issue at hand here, was one of TRUST and DISCLOSURE. Namely, that Iran does not feel they need to give DISCLOSURE but rather should be TRUSTED; and the US has no past evidence to look at to judge Iran worthy of TRUST, and also a history of dishonesty that would preclude a wise decision-maker to seek DISCLOSURE. Especially when the lives and DNA chain patterns of mankind could be at stake. So, they are diametrically opposed poles.
Why does Iran want to have a 'gun', like the other countries, but keep theirs concealed? "That''s not a rocket in my pocket. It's an energy program. A very heavily enriched uranium based energy program." In a country that does not have the werewithal to provide their citizenry basic services, such as freedom of speech, vote and generalized running water, still they have the energy and commodities required to begin a nuclear energy program?
But you can trust in the validity of these words: Whatever is said by us or them, America no longer wants to be the 'leader.' We continue to do these things, mostly now a) under pressure from other countries whose authority and morality we respect; b) as a futile attempt to hold the 'richest country' position, well beyond the length of time that economics decided we should have it; and c) (this is a big one BTW) to avoid eventually being the thing that is blamed for bad events twenty years forward on the other side of the globe, namely the Middle East. Were it not for a) friendly pressure, b) fear of poverty, and c) fear of repercussion - - we would no longer be doing any of the things that lead you, gRomoZeKa, to say this.
So to quote David Essex: "Where do we go from here?"
Here's a speech I heard from one of my Iranian friends: "Presently, lots of the oil is wasted on the domestic heating and generating electricity. And the people are, in general, poor. So, basically, we HAVE to spend our last money to develop the nuclear power so as to provide enough domestic heating and electricity, and export the oil for the huge bucks. With the current prices, the oil export would pay for the nuclear investment, and make our country rich like that of Saudi Arabia. And if we also develop the nuclear weapons, we could feel safe of Israel which already has the WMD."Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
The above was not to say I agree with him, but just to give you a little perspective. Something that could help you think multi-dimensional.
I don't know. Personally, I would prefer Iran not develop its nuclear weapons. Simply because it's kind of adding to the chance things could spin out of control. It's been a popular trend to align themselves with the Nuclear Nonproliferation, so that's where I'm standing. Having said that, I don't practically see a simple way of stopping Iran from developing the WMD. Like, the victory of more pro-Western opposition might do that, but again, it might not depending on the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
By the way, to produce nuclear weapons you need weapon-grade Uranium with content of U-235 more than 90%. Now Iran enriches Uranium up to 20%-25% of U-235 content. This fission material just cannot be used for production of WMD.
Ramil, I read up on this. Not that it's 100% correct all the time, but wikipedia says this:
"The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, reaching infinity at 6%235U.[2]"
HEU is nice, but 20%+ will still burn whole families' limbs off. Which personally I hope is never allowed to happen.
@Croc, I respect what you say, and your Iranian friend speaks intelligently. I do not pretend to know the fiscal situation in Iran better than he may. But I do know that for a fiscally concerned country, space exploration via nuclear p =@ wer seems to be a bit of an expensive luxury. Especially, as your friend stated, during a time when the people are in need. Why does leadership in that country spend effort on luxurious experimentation like space exploration when they are having trouble taking care of the basic needs of their people?
You know what, maybe that's not a fair question, coming from me. I'm no expert. All I know is that America has been wrong in the past, and especially under the dark reign of gw bush sometimes we weren't even allowed to know it. I want to know when America missteps from now on because as a citizen it is my job to shout about it in the hope of informing and changing.
If the US outrightly attacked Iran, unless it was to stop an actual imminent missile strike (and we would be wanting proof this time, n.b. Rumsfeld), I would not support it, and I am confident hundreds of thousands of the rest of us wouldn't, either. It would break my heart.
That being said, if Iran starts killing Israelis, or if Israelis start killing Iranians, it would be every bit as disappointing to me. None of these would lead us toward the peace we ultimately need.
:druzja:
You know, I have a very good example of the similar situation. My country was in ruins after the WW2 and it was more 'fiscally concerned' than Iran presently is, but nevertheless it invested vast amounts of money and other resources into developing of its own nuclear and thermonuclear weapon and its own space program. It probably cost lives and happiness of many people who could otherwise be cared of better and there was many ways to spend these resources in a war-beaten country. Why USSR wasted the valuable resources on what you call 'expensive luxury'? Because another democratic country was eager to invade it and prepared to repeat nuclear bombing it had performed in Japan against its former WW2 ally.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
From this point of view I understand Iran very well.
Well, I'm no expert either, but let's face it: the countries like India, China, Sri Lanka (and many more) declared their own space programs and have actively been making investments. Do they have all their Earthly issues settled? Are those countries spoiled by luxury? Not even close. I think the answer is rather simple: the space is the next millennium oil. The first target is the Moon for its Helium-3 and the subsequent abundant energy produced by the fusion. Afterward, the resources of the asteroid belt. Then, the terraforming of Mars which is much closer to the asteroid belt and thus can provide a more economical base. That is not a Sci-Fi, but the brutal reality. The resources of Earth are just not enough to sustain the economic growth and the present Earth resources are depleting rather fast. The so-called third-world countries simply have no choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
Fair play, I see your point. And I apologize - I didn't mean to go all Bill O'Reilly on you there. (ugh, bill oreilly, ugh)
Thanks for all of your opinions and your various intelligent viewpoints. I may not represent my whole country but *I* respect you all - and here's to hope for peace betwixt all areas of this grand planet. Будущее имеет только один мир, одну любовь.
Pravda.ru? Seriously? Aliens Land in RussiaQuote:
Originally Posted by kidkboom
kidkboom is confused, he reads a conspiracy theory yet is a lefty. I detect some self-loathing.
As far as Iran goes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nut-case that doesn't care much about the masses (for lack of a better word). Too bad. Theocracies never work. Unless, of course, Islamic law (Shariah) appeals to you.
They do it quite regularly, by the way. Most of the time they land on Friday evenings, I saw them a couple of times too.Quote:
Originally Posted by capecoddah
Note to self: "Meet Ramil, bring beer". :beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
No, with beer you would hardly meet them. You'd need something stronger than beer )))Quote:
Originally Posted by capecoddah
Well, the difference is that Pakistan isn't controlled by the Taliban, whereas Iran is controlled by a regime that frequently makes existentialist threats to other countries (namely, Israel). I don't think that Iran would actually use nuclear weapons against Israel, but the Jews have developed a habit of taking people at their word when they threaten extinction... And by the way, there are plenty of concerns about Pakistan in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I think Iran, at this point, is not much of a theocracy and is more of a hybrid mafia/military junta state. The most powerful player is the Revolutionary Guards, which at this point in history has acquired significant business interests across Iran. Ahmadinejad is very close to them and together they stand to lose more than anybody else. I suspect that despite the overheated rhetoric, Iran's leaders are pragmatic and won't commit national suicide by using nuclear weapons; rather, they stand to benefit from the military-mafia complex. But Netanyahu's right-leaning government in Israel might not take that leap of faith.
I believe in non-proliferation. It's a long-term goal that isn't going to happen any time soon, but adding countries to the nuclear ranks doesn't help. Especially a government as openly and directly belligerent as the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad regime. It's also worth considering that Iran's rise is further inflaming the deep Shi'a/Sunni split and could lead to an arms race with Saudi Arabia and/or Egypt. Iran and Saudi Arabia already seem to be fighting a proxy war in Yemen...
There are a couple of other important aspects to the situation:
1. There is not a lot of public information on the extent of Iran's nuclear program. Some people believe that they are on the cusp, others think they need more time. I have no idea where they are. Mossad probably does.
2. It may be impossible to destroy Iran's nuclear program, short of invading the country (that's not going to happen). The Iranians have learned from what happened to Iraq in 1981 when Israel destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor. It's believed that Iran's nuclear facilities are spread out and underground, impervious to air assault.
3. The X-factor is the Greens. Iranian society is deeply polarized at the moment. There's the deeply conservative base of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and the widespread protest movement which seems to be more present in urban centers. The protest movement lacks clear leadership, which is both a strength and a weakness. Many of the highly respected clerical elite are also disaffected by the thuggish Khamenei regime and I can only imagine that there are many wheels turning behind the scenes. We'll see.
Well, I don't, well, let's say I'm not that optimistic. Back in 1940s it took combined minds of the greatest physicists from all around the world to produce nuclear energy but now every tech speciality student understands the basics and many of them are capable of building a nuclear device provided they have fission material. It's like sand running between your fingers - the more you tighten the grip the more gets loose. You can't control them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
It may be as you say but I would welcome any factor that weakens the US's influence on this world.Quote:
It's a long-term goal that isn't going to happen any time soon, but adding countries to the nuclear ranks doesn't help. Especially a government as openly and directly belligerent as the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad regime. It's also worth considering that Iran's rise is further inflaming the deep Shi'a/Sunni split and could lead to an arms race with Saudi Arabia and/or Egypt. Iran and Saudi Arabia already seem to be fighting a proxy war in Yemen...
[/quote:1hnfvycv]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Be careful what you wish for. As an American, I am well-versed in the Law of Unintended Consequences. It's a lesson that our society hasn't really absorbed yet, unfortunately.
In the long-term it will be very interesting to see what happens with Iran. The demographics don't seem to favor the regime, but it's hard to truly gauge public opinion in all regions of the country. The regime has lost its aura and legitimacy with many......but it's still strong enough.
I think we're far beyond the point of no return here. Some new system of balanse should take over. Man has been perfecting the methods of killing for eons and I doubt this can be stopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
I think I should clarify my point. I believe in parity and balanse. America has become far too powerful for its own good. It is in the interests of USA to lessen its ambitions before this complex world that I call Pax Americana will 'collapse' on itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Actually, I do. And I don't believe that much in the nuclear parity. Let's be more specific: I believe in the nuclear parity between the two 'super-powers' each of which has the capability of total mutual destruction, but not in the nuclear parity between Iran and Israel. My concern is that Iran will use a simpler 'dirty' bomb, thus not literally destructing Israel, but make it practically uninhabitable. That can't be said about Iran which has plenty of real estate. Also, Israel might be hard-pressed by the other countries so as not to worsen the 'devastating ecological situation in the Middle East' which might effectively prevent Israel from the adequate response. I think there are plenty of scenarios which could make Iran actually use its bomb. And I could easily imagine the pacifying rhetoric for Iran to be left unpunished. For example, something in the wave of: "Oh, so the US can use its nuclear weapon twice and Iran can't even use it once?!! What a hypocrisy!!! Let's not make the situation worse and just forget that had ever happened." And some countries like Uganda might propose to take a significant portion of Israeli refugees.Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
All that is hypothetical, of course, however if I could see that feasible, I believe some Iranian politicians might too. And it might only take one 'cornering' crisis for Iran to start that scenario. The subsequent rhetoric would claim something like 'Iran simply had no other choice'.
Here's the thing. Israel and Iran do not have a common border. You can't have a warfare over a couple of the other countries (namely Iraq and Saudi Arabia). Neither of the Iran-neighbouring countries would agree to temporarily accept Israeli military forces in their territory. Nor does Israel have the aircraft carriers to deliver the jets to Iran over the ocean. The precision of the ballistic missiles leaves a lot to be desired to hit the Iranian nuclear reactor. Try to outline the scenario of Israel assaulting Iran with any chance of success.Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
It all comes down to whether you think Iran is a rational actor. If Iran is a rational actor, they won't use the bomb. If they do, you can be sure that Israel (and probably the US) wouldn't give even the briefest thought to the "ecological situation" in the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
My contention is that Iran is not run by religious fanatics, but by men who have major economic interests in the Islamic Republic. Signing up for national suicide is bad for business. Let's be clear -- if Iran uses a nuclear bomb, they are going to get obliterated. Now, we can debate the morality or the wisdom of that and we can discuss how other countries might react. It would be a terrible, terrible thing for Iran, Israel, and the whole world....but there would be such a response.
Here's the thing. Israel and Iran do not have a common border. You can't have a warfare over a couple of the other countries (namely Iraq and Saudi Arabia). Neither of the Iran-neighbouring countries would agree to temporarily accept Israeli military forces in their territory. Nor does Israel have the aircraft carriers to deliver the jets to Iran over the ocean. The precision of the ballistic missiles leaves a lot to be desired to hit the Iranian nuclear reactor. Try to outline the scenario of Israel assaulting Iran with any chance of success.[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
Yep, that's the problem. It may be that Iran's nuclear program is unassailable. It seems that it's spread out and partially if not completely buried. I'm only privy to the information that's in the public domain and right now that's not much. Israel has shown that they'll nip these things in the bud if they can (Iraq, Syria). They might not have the capacity or ability to do so with Iran. If they do, they probably will.
Perhaps it would in a [bit less than a] perfect world. But, don't forget the politicians in the other countries are also pragmatic. They would be dealing with the situation at hand. What would they gain from the destruction of Iran? Nothing. But lose a lot of oil (and other stuff). And with the State of Israel gone there might be some dividends a lot of politicians could play with. I think the worst thing could happen to the Iranian government that uses a nuke against Israel is they would lose their power.Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
So, the bottom line is: I think Iran should not be allowed to have the WMD. Period.