• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

The world view of the top Iranian leaders and nuclear war

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
 


hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.
Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
Kinda up there with that western civilised guy in Austria who put his daughter in the basement and abused her for a few years. Not sure what his reason was, he hasn't said yet.
As for the the leaders of Iran, well I thought that was a no brainer for you. They have green skin , bulging eyes and are cold blooded and they eat things uncooked. Maybe they are lizards in disguise from a far off place preparing to take over.
Would it be the water they are after-hardly that oil stuff. Well that would prove they are stupid too, no match for our western cleverness or our civilised way of life, you know, how we respect one and all and all that stuff. Better keep an eye on those pesky Iranians all the same, they might come and take way all that we have. Can't think what that could be off hand, but I'll think of something.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
hopi watcher said:
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.
Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
Kinda up there with that western civilised guy in Austria who put his daughter in the basement and abused her for a few years. Not sure what his reason was, he hasn't said yet.
As for the the leaders of Iran, well I thought that was a no brainer for you. They have green skin , bulging eyes and are cold blooded and they eat things uncooked. Maybe they are lizards in disguise from a far off place preparing to take over.
Would it be the water they are after-hardly that oil stuff. Well that would prove they are stupid too, no match for our western cleverness or our civilised way of life, you know, how we respect one and all and all that stuff. Better keep an eye on those pesky Iranians all the same, they might come and take way all that we have. Can't think what that could be off hand, but I'll think of something.
If in the future Ireland is in range of Iranian nuclear missiles,will you still be scoffing?
 

mairteenpak

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
196
We must invade next week to prevent a nuclear Iran
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
16
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
.
 

Halibut

Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
17
PronsiasPilate said:
...

to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????
...
It's not the 80 million I'd be afraid of. Try thinking of a smaller number - the members of government perhaps.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
16
Halibut said:
PronsiasPilate said:
...

to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????
...
It's not the 80 million I'd be afraid of. Try thinking of a smaller number - the members of government perhaps.

so you're ignoring my whole poinht about the USAs "deterrent" arsenal.

stop the lies and scaremongering.
 

hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
patslatt said:
hopi watcher said:
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.
Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
Kinda up there with that western civilised guy in Austria who put his daughter in the basement and abused her for a few years. Not sure what his reason was, he hasn't said yet.
As for the the leaders of Iran, well I thought that was a no brainer for you. They have green skin , bulging eyes and are cold blooded and they eat things uncooked. Maybe they are lizards in disguise from a far off place preparing to take over.
Would it be the water they are after-hardly that oil stuff. Well that would prove they are stupid too, no match for our western cleverness or our civilised way of life, you know, how we respect one and all and all that stuff. Better keep an eye on those pesky Iranians all the same, they might come and take way all that we have. Can't think what that could be off hand, but I'll think of something.
If in the future Ireland is in range of Iranian nuclear missiles,will you still be scoffing?
What's so special about 'Iranian' nuclear missiles? Are they more lethal than the ones that we are currently surrounded by? If you rub the grit from your eyes you will see from historic fact that there are many who are presently armed to the teeth with this stuff who have demonstrated in very practical ways their capacity to regard others as surplus to requirements and who snuffed out the lives of countless thousands without so much as a wink or a nod not to mention a sleepless night. On the otherhand, when it comes to dishing out brutality to others, Iranians hardly make it to the footnote of the page.
If you want to worry about nuclear bombs etc. I suggest you turn around-the bogeyman is behind you.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
what a stupid question.

America spent literally trillions of dollars acquiring the largest nuclear arsenal in history as a "deterrant"

Either the deterrent works or it doesn't.

america has enough nuclear warheads to turn the earth to a blackened incinerated lifeless shell several times over.

So to say that a nuclear iran would be a threat is either the rantings of an imbecile or deliberate lies.

that's like saying that a 4 year old with a blunderbuss would be a threat to a regiment of fully armed delta force or navy seals soldiers.

even if iran acquired 10 nuclear weapons this second they could NEVER use them becuase they KNOW with the push of a button dubya and cheney could nuke every square inch of iran not back to the sotne age but out of existance.

let the iranians have nukes if they want to. they could never use them.

to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????

cop and grow up :roll: :roll: :roll:

This entire question is loaded with colonialist racism - eg, it's ok for the old boys clubs in the US and Engerland to have loads of nukes because they have a divine right to have them but we can't have the inferior dark people having them

EUrope and the USA are not superior to the iranians.

if the USA has a right to nukes so does EVERYONE ELSE
Your interesting arguments would be more credible without the childish insults.

The weakness in your argument about a deterrent is that the size and sophistication of the nuclear arsenal doesn't necessarily determine its deterrent potential. The people who are the targets of it may not be deterred by the risk of total annihilation if they possess a small nuclear arsenal enabling them to retaliate. In a duel at extremely close range where one man aims a small pistol with one bullet at a metre range at the head of an opponent,while the opponent has a Uzi submachine gun capable of firing 30 bullets in a burst, does the Uzi hold much of an advantage?

France's President DeGaulle,an intellectual general, understood this, summing up the strategic argument for a French nuclear deterrent in the 1960s simply by saying,"All we want to do is tear off an arm,maybe a leg". This meant that France's modest nuclear weapons arsenal was sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western Europe,given that it could probably wipe most of the Soviet's major cities,though not most of the population.

The DeGaulle logic can be carried much further than that. In Iran's case,initially its deterrent only needs to be capable of wiping out half a dozen major NATO alliance European cities within rocket range,which would require maybe as few as 10 nuclear bombs. That would give Iran diplomatic leverage with NATO which it could use to exploit divisions within the USA/NATO alliance. Later on,as its rocket range became extended or as it developed a few long range submarines, it could threaten a number of major US metropolises close to the coast: New York, Los Angeles,San Francisco,Dallas,Miami,home to a population of maybe more than 50 millions. Iran's military capabilites are at least moderately sophisticated,given its technically well educated population.

The handful of extremely revolutionary religious leaders and fanatics who control Iran may be quite happy to go to Paradise in a nuclear war if they could cripple the Infidel America for a few generations. The Iranian parliament does not control them,no more than the elected German parliament controlled the top German ministers and clique who launched WWI in 1914.

Fanatics in charge of countries are capable of anything. Many in the Japanese leadership felt Japan shouldn't surrender no matter how many atomic bombs were dropped by the Americans. National suicide was preferable in their view. A cult of suicide was prominent among the Samurai military.

As for your notion that race and colonialism should enter the argument,this is nauseatingly PC. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, since they are the biggest tangible threat to the existence of the human race.

But given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle,it is important that they be confined to politically stable countries and every attempt including a major war should be made to prevent nuclear proliferation. America, Britain and France are extremely stable politically. Russia should be moderately stable as long as oil prices don't collapse. China has a highly disciplined government and a well organised Communist party system and civil service.

The one worry I have about America is the stupid aggression of some of its military leaders.For example, during the Cuban missile crisis, the admiral on one ship launched several depth charges against a Soviet sub,damaging its hull,without the knowledge of President Kennedy who was furious when he found out. The Soviet sub had an American ship in its gunsights but a unanimous vote of three officers was required to launch torpedos. An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.
 

Sligoboy

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
180
patslatt said:
Your interesting arguments would be more credible without the childish insults.

The weakness in your argument about a deterrent is that the size and sophistication of the nuclear arsenal doesn't necessarily determine its deterrent potential. The people who are the targets of it may not be deterred by the risk of total annihilation if they possess a small nuclear arsenal enabling them to retaliate. In a duel at extremely close range where one man aims a small pistol with one bullet at a metre range at the head of an opponent,while the opponent has a Uzi submachine gun capable of firing 30 bullets in a burst, does the Uzi hold much of an advantage?

France's President DeGaulle,an intellectual general, understood this, summing up the strategic argument for a French nuclear deterrent in the 1960s simply by saying,"All we want to do is tear off an arm,maybe a leg". This meant that France's modest nuclear weapons arsenal was sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western Europe,given that it could probably wipe most of the Soviet's major cities,though not most of the population.

The DeGaulle logic can be carried much further than that. In Iran's case,initially its deterrent only needs to be capable of wiping out half a dozen major NATO alliance European cities within rocket range,which would require maybe as few as 10 nuclear bombs. That would give Iran diplomatic leverage with NATO which it could use to exploit divisions within the USA/NATO alliance. Later on,as its rocket range became extended or as it developed a few long range submarines, it could threaten a number of major US metropolises close to the coast: New York, Los Angeles,San Francisco,Dallas,Miami,home to a population of maybe more than 50 millions. Iran's military capabilites are at least moderately sophisticated,given its technically well educated population.

The handful of extremely revolutionary religious leaders and fanatics who control Iran may be quite happy to go to Paradise in a nuclear war if they could cripple the Infidel America for a few generations. The Iranian parliament does not control them,no more than the elected German parliament controlled the top German ministers and clique who launched WWI in 1914.

Fanatics in charge of countries are capable of anything. Many in the Japanese leadership felt Japan shouldn't surrender no matter how many atomic bombs were dropped by the Americans. National suicide was preferable in their view. A cult of suicide was prominent among the Samurai military.

As for your notion that race and colonialism should enter the argument,this is nauseatingly PC. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, since they are the biggest tangible threat to the existence of the human race.

But given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle,it is important that they be confined to politically stable countries and every attempt including a major war should be made to prevent nuclear proliferation. America, Britain and France are extremely stable politically. Russia should be moderately stable as long as oil prices don't collapse. China has a highly disciplined government and a well organised Communist party system and civil service.

The one worry I have about America is the stupid aggression of some of its military leaders.For example, during the Cuban missile crisis, the admiral on one ship launched several depth charges against a Soviet sub,damaging its hull,without the knowledge of President Kennedy who was furious when he found out. The Soviet sub had an American ship in its gunsights but a unanimous vote of three officers was required to launch torpedos. An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.
So basically all you are saying is if Iran gets nuclear weapons it will deny the US/UK and Israel the potential to deal with them militarily to keep them in line. The layers of sophism where unnecessary.

Your nonsense about Iran being ruled by fanatics willing to sacrifice the entire country is either the ranting of a seriously intellectually impaired individual or simple propaganda. I suspect the latter, no one is that stupid. It also fits into your Nuclear club mentality which of course is abject racism on a grand scale. I am always amused by such introverted thinking, especially considering the greatest threat to world peace at present is one G.W. Bush and the only country on the planet to have used nuclear weapons in anger is the United States of America. Further to this, the combined Human Rights abuses of the likes of the US, Russia, Israel, China within their spheres of influence leaves Iran looking like a veritable utopia.
 

hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
patslatt said:
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
what a stupid question.

America spent literally trillions of dollars acquiring the largest nuclear arsenal in history as a "deterrant"

Either the deterrent works or it doesn't.

america has enough nuclear warheads to turn the earth to a blackened incinerated lifeless shell several times over.

So to say that a nuclear iran would be a threat is either the rantings of an imbecile or deliberate lies.

that's like saying that a 4 year old with a blunderbuss would be a threat to a regiment of fully armed delta force or navy seals soldiers.

even if iran acquired 10 nuclear weapons this second they could NEVER use them becuase they KNOW with the push of a button dubya and cheney could nuke every square inch of iran not back to the sotne age but out of existance.

let the iranians have nukes if they want to. they could never use them.

to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????

cop and grow up :roll: :roll: :roll:

This entire question is loaded with colonialist racism - eg, it's ok for the old boys clubs in the US and Engerland to have loads of nukes because they have a divine right to have them but we can't have the inferior dark people having them

EUrope and the USA are not superior to the iranians.

if the USA has a right to nukes so does EVERYONE ELSE
Your interesting arguments would be more credible without the childish insults.

The weakness in your argument about a deterrent is that the size and sophistication of the nuclear arsenal doesn't necessarily determine its deterrent potential. The people who are the targets of it may not be deterred by the risk of total annihilation if they possess a small nuclear arsenal enabling them to retaliate. In a duel at extremely close range where one man aims a small pistol with one bullet at a metre range at the head of an opponent,while the opponent has a Uzi submachine gun capable of firing 30 bullets in a burst, does the Uzi hold much of an advantage?

France's President DeGaulle,an intellectual general, understood this, summing up the strategic argument for a French nuclear deterrent in the 1960s simply by saying,"All we want to do is tear off an arm,maybe a leg". This meant that France's modest nuclear weapons arsenal was sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western Europe,given that it could probably wipe most of the Soviet's major cities,though not most of the population.

The DeGaulle logic can be carried much further than that. In Iran's case,initially its deterrent only needs to be capable of wiping out half a dozen major NATO alliance European cities within rocket range,which would require maybe as few as 10 nuclear bombs. That would give Iran diplomatic leverage with NATO which it could use to exploit divisions within the USA/NATO alliance. Later on,as its rocket range became extended or as it developed a few long range submarines, it could threaten a number of major US metropolises close to the coast: New York, Los Angeles,San Francisco,Dallas,Miami,home to a population of maybe more than 50 millions. Iran's military capabilites are at least moderately sophisticated,given its technically well educated population.

The handful of extremely revolutionary religious leaders and fanatics who control Iran may be quite happy to go to Paradise in a nuclear war if they could cripple the Infidel America for a few generations. The Iranian parliament does not control them,no more than the elected German parliament controlled the top German ministers and clique who launched WWI in 1914.

Fanatics in charge of countries are capable of anything. Many in the Japanese leadership felt Japan shouldn't surrender no matter how many atomic bombs were dropped by the Americans. National suicide was preferable in their view. A cult of suicide was prominent among the Samurai military.

As for your notion that race and colonialism should enter the argument,this is nauseatingly PC. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, since they are the biggest tangible threat to the existence of the human race.

But given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle,it is important that they be confined to politically stable countries and every attempt including a major war should be made to prevent nuclear proliferation. America, Britain and France are extremely stable politically. Russia should be moderately stable as long as oil prices don't collapse. China has a highly disciplined government and a well organised Communist party system and civil service.

The one worry I have about America is the stupid aggression of some of its military leaders.For example, during the Cuban missile crisis, the admiral on one ship launched several depth charges against a Soviet sub,damaging its hull,without the knowledge of President Kennedy who was furious when he found out. The Soviet sub had an American ship in its gunsights but a unanimous vote of three officers was required to launch torpedos. An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.
Just as a matter of curiosity, do you not consider Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowich etc, fanatics? Would you give them a loaded gun to play with? Your whole thinking is essentially racist straight out of the whacky world of the BNF. If the west is genuinely concerned about the proliferation of nucelar weapons then it should lead by example.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise?
In reality I think the Iranian leadership at its highest levels is invested with pragmatism. They did sell weapons to the great Satan via Olly North remember. However the very nature of how the leadership is elected and the basis of the system that maintains it (religous imperitives) means that pragmatism can go out the window at any time or depending on who is leader.

Ahmedinjad is not the supreme leader, but the fact that someone who fervently believes in doomday as a way to fulfill prophacy has gotten to a top job, is worrying.

At the level of the Mullahs, we have to be cautious when we see the Supreme leader as carrying out the will of God or implimenting it. It makes the Aytollah supremely vunerable to the most religously zelous in Iranian society if his political policies are seen to deviate from the path laid out by God himself. In allowing Rafsanjani and his allies into the Council of Elders, the current Ayotollah seems to be willing to err on the side of relative moderation (and perhaps even secularism), rather than place his fate and that of the office he holds in the hands of the system that he ultimitly represents.

The quesiton that is not being addressed is: who rules Iran? The episode of the British Royal marines being kidnapped/arrested by Revolutionary guards raised some worrying issues. In the rush to take one side or the others position, nearly everyone overlooked the fact that the Iranian leadership seemed to be caught off guard by the incident. They issued contradictory statements and information in relation to the matter and it seemed to take a while for the top leadership to actually know what happened and what was going on.

The fact is the Iranian leadership is constrained by its inability to excert total control over the entire of Iran and all the factious forces that govern its differant regions in name of the Ayotollah. It is not the nature of the Iranian religous system that worries me most in relation to the nuclear issue. What worries me is that the Ayotollah (and hance Iran) may take full responsibility for the actions of those who act in their name, but enjoy too great a degree of independance. The fact the Ayatollah has been unable to rein in any of these factions, including the guards, is worrying. Who will ultimitly control Irans nuclear capability?
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
Thac0man said:
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise?
In reality I think the Iranian leadership at its highest levels is invested with pragmatism. They did sell weapons to the great Satan via Olly North remember. However the very nature of how the leadership is elected and the basis of the system that maintains it (religous imperitives) means that pragmatism can go out the window at any time or depending on who is leader.

Ahmedinjad is not the supreme leader, but the fact that someone who fervently believes in doomday as a way to fulfill prophacy has gotten to a top job, is worrying.

At the level of the Mullahs, we have to be cautious when we see the Supreme leader as carrying out the will of God or implimenting it. It makes the Aytollah supremely vunerable to the most religously zelous in Iranian society if his political policies are seen to deviate from the path laid out by God himself. In allowing Rafsanjani and his allies into the Council of Elders, the current Ayotollah seems to be willing to err on the side of relative moderation (and perhaps even secularism), rather than place his fate and that of the office he holds in the hands of the system that he ultimitly represents.

The quesiton that is not being addressed is: who rules Iran? The episode of the British Royal marines being kidnapped/arrested by Revolutionary guards raised some worrying issues. In the rush to take one side or the others position, nearly everyone overlooked the fact that the Iranian leadership seemed to be caught off guard by the incident. They issued contradictory statements and information in relation to the matter and it seemed to take a while for the top leadership to actually know what happened and what was going on.

The fact is the Iranian leadership is constrained by its inability to excert total control over the entire of Iran and all the factious forces that govern its differant regions in name of the Ayotollah. It is not the nature of the Iranian religous system that worries me most in relation to the nuclear issue. What worries me is that the Ayotollah (and hance Iran) may take full responsibility for the actions of those who act in their name, but enjoy too great a degree of independance. The fact the Ayatollah has been unable to rein in any of these factions, including the guards, is worrying. Who will ultimitly control Irans nuclear capability?
The leadership confusion in the chain of command from the Ayotollah to the Revolutionary Guards would be a major concern with nuclear weapons. The Guards have immense commercial interests, are a military/commercial state within a state and vie for power and influence with the clerics. Eventually,in a crisis,they may take over Iran, while professing loyalty to the Ayotollah.

THe Guards' strong support for Hamas and Hezbollah shows that Iran is prepared to destabilise the whole Middle East to assert itself. Its support of Hezbollah may reignite a civil war in Lebanon.Its support of Hamas may prevent any chance of a Palestinian peace agreement, which would encourage the Zionist settlers to massively expand settlements over the next decade to a level that a peace agreement becomes impossible for any Israeli government.

This continuing tension in the Middle East could lead to the overthrow of many existing governments in the region. If they fear immediate threats to their security,they may begin interfering in Iran's internal affairs by supporting groups aiming to destabilise Iran. A regional war between Iran and its Arab neighbours is a distinct possibility if the Ayotollah doesn't rein in the Revolutionary Guards.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,444
Twitter
twit taa woo
patslatt said:
The leadership confusion in the chain of command from the Ayotollah to the Revolutionary Guards would be a major concern with nuclear weapons. The Guards have immense commercial interests, are a military/commercial state within a state and vie for power and influence with the clerics. Eventually,in a crisis,they may take over Iran, while professing loyalty to the Ayotollah.
That is my main concern as i said. I did not directly mention a coup, but as Iranian politics are a very closed affair what brief glimpses we get show a brutal and almost intercene conflict at Irans core.

Rather than face the new incomming Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the out going commander whose sponsors were loosing power fled to the arms of America. Satan itself. Himself, his Bags, baggage, a stack of secrets plus his Faimly, all gone. If that is the sort of poltical bear pit that the gurads themsevles have within their ranks, one can only image the bitter intensity of fault lines between them and their rivals for the Ayatollahs favour. The flash points could be many and numerous and the balancing act that the Ayatollah has to do cannot be maintined forever.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
16
patslatt said:
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
It is hard to know what is the world view of the small inner circle of top Iranian leaders.Are they religious fanatics indifferent to reality? Or are they capable of pragmatism and compromise? Even the international minded Economist doesn't have any clear insight.Maybe such an insight is not possible,but it important to find out. The inner circle of of top Iranian leaders favour a nuclear weapons development programme that could lead to war with America. This is not dissimilar to an inner circle of leaders in Germany launching World War I without giving the elected German parliament much of a chance to respond.

Iran's top leaders may feel entitled to have some nuclear weapons to match those of Israel,even though Shia Iran has not had any quarrel with Israel historically. Why? The Iranian revolution has bred militancy typical of many revolutions. It wants to export its revolution abroad. The long war with Iraq didn't fully exhausted its revolutionary ideology.

It brutally suppresses dissent and imposes puritanical religious conformity at home. Some years ago, I read about a case of a cleric who ordered a young teenage woman executed for giving him backchat. In the movie Persepolis now in theatres, the author mentions the execution of a young Iranian woman who was forcibly legally "married" and raped because a virgin could not be executed under Sharia law. Medieval Christendom had a similar law.

Can the religiously fanatical top leaders of Iran's clerical regime be trusted with nuclear weapons? A nuclear Iran would propel a nuclear arms race in the politically unstable Middle East. Could that lead to a high risk of a nuclear war?

Should America and Europe be prepared to go to war to prevent a nuclear Iran?
what a stupid question.

America spent literally trillions of dollars acquiring the largest nuclear arsenal in history as a "deterrant"

Either the deterrent works or it doesn't.

america has enough nuclear warheads to turn the earth to a blackened incinerated lifeless shell several times over.

So to say that a nuclear iran would be a threat is either the rantings of an imbecile or deliberate lies.

that's like saying that a 4 year old with a blunderbuss would be a threat to a regiment of fully armed delta force or navy seals soldiers.

even if iran acquired 10 nuclear weapons this second they could NEVER use them becuase they KNOW with the push of a button dubya and cheney could nuke every square inch of iran not back to the sotne age but out of existance.

let the iranians have nukes if they want to. they could never use them.

to do so would be natiuonal suicide. are you really imlpying that 80 million iranians are rabid fundamentalists foaming at the mouth to commit national suicide?????

cop and grow up :roll: :roll: :roll:

This entire question is loaded with colonialist racism - eg, it's ok for the old boys clubs in the US and Engerland to have loads of nukes because they have a divine right to have them but we can't have the inferior dark people having them

EUrope and the USA are not superior to the iranians.

if the USA has a right to nukes so does EVERYONE ELSE
Your interesting arguments would be more credible without the childish insults.

The weakness in your argument about a deterrent is that the size and sophistication of the nuclear arsenal doesn't necessarily determine its deterrent potential. The people who are the targets of it may not be deterred by the risk of total annihilation if they possess a small nuclear arsenal enabling them to retaliate. In a duel at extremely close range where one man aims a small pistol with one bullet at a metre range at the head of an opponent,while the opponent has a Uzi submachine gun capable of firing 30 bullets in a burst, does the Uzi hold much of an advantage?

France's President DeGaulle,an intellectual general, understood this, summing up the strategic argument for a French nuclear deterrent in the 1960s simply by saying,"All we want to do is tear off an arm,maybe a leg". This meant that France's modest nuclear weapons arsenal was sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from attacking Western Europe,given that it could probably wipe most of the Soviet's major cities,though not most of the population.

The DeGaulle logic can be carried much further than that. In Iran's case,initially its deterrent only needs to be capable of wiping out half a dozen major NATO alliance European cities within rocket range,which would require maybe as few as 10 nuclear bombs. That would give Iran diplomatic leverage with NATO which it could use to exploit divisions within the USA/NATO alliance. Later on,as its rocket range became extended or as it developed a few long range submarines, it could threaten a number of major US metropolises close to the coast: New York, Los Angeles,San Francisco,Dallas,Miami,home to a population of maybe more than 50 millions. Iran's military capabilites are at least moderately sophisticated,given its technically well educated population.

The handful of extremely revolutionary religious leaders and fanatics who control Iran may be quite happy to go to Paradise in a nuclear war if they could cripple the Infidel America for a few generations. The Iranian parliament does not control them,no more than the elected German parliament controlled the top German ministers and clique who launched WWI in 1914.

Fanatics in charge of countries are capable of anything. Many in the Japanese leadership felt Japan shouldn't surrender no matter how many atomic bombs were dropped by the Americans. National suicide was preferable in their view. A cult of suicide was prominent among the Samurai military.

As for your notion that race and colonialism should enter the argument,this is nauseatingly PC. Nobody should have nuclear weapons, since they are the biggest tangible threat to the existence of the human race.

But given that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle,it is important that they be confined to politically stable countries and every attempt including a major war should be made to prevent nuclear proliferation. America, Britain and France are extremely stable politically. Russia should be moderately stable as long as oil prices don't collapse. China has a highly disciplined government and a well organised Communist party system and civil service.

The one worry I have about America is the stupid aggression of some of its military leaders.For example, during the Cuban missile crisis, the admiral on one ship launched several depth charges against a Soviet sub,damaging its hull,without the knowledge of President Kennedy who was furious when he found out. The Soviet sub had an American ship in its gunsights but a unanimous vote of three officers was required to launch torpedos. An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.

.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
hopi watcher said:
patslatt said:
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
..... An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.
Just as a matter of curiosity, do you not consider Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowich etc, fanatics? Would you give them a loaded gun to play with? Your whole thinking is essentially racist straight out of the whacky world of the BNF. If the west is genuinely concerned about the proliferation of nucelar weapons then it should lead by example.
Bush etc were right wing ideologues of the neo-conservative movement. Without any evidence and ignoring the advice of Europe,they hoped that Iraq would become a democracy after the invasion,in the same way that Japan and Germany did so after WWII. They failed to see the obvious flaws in this plan: democracy in the Middle East means clerically orientated rule,which usually is backward and medieval in outlook,while a democracy imposed by the invader would lack full legitimacy.

The plan possibly could have succeeded had the military's request for more soldiers to maintain public order in post invasion Iraq been granted. Rumsfeld was too arrogant and Bush too obtuse to take the military advice. The collapse of Iraq's public order and the insurgency were massively boosted by the incredibly stupid decision to disband the Baathist government structure and army before an alternative government and security system could be set up.

To put this in perspective,when Japan surrenderd in WWII,the Americans asked the Japanese army to maintain order in occupied countries until the American army arrived. Bear in mind that the Japanese army's massacres of civilians (180,000 killed in a single day by the retreating Japanese army in Manila) made the German SS look gentle. That underlines the importance of keeping public order, the first responsibility of power.

Bush has been mugged by reality in Iraq and Condi Rice's influence over foreign policy has increased,with a restoration of a multilateral approach to international relations.

THe Bush government in its early day's was ideological,and while that can blind people to reality,it is a far cry from the kind of political fanaticism evident in the Middle East.

This talk of racism is silly. I mentioned that China's government is stable and disciplined,implying that it can be trusted with nukes,unlike most unstable third world countries in flashpoints like the Middle East. As for giving up nukes, there simply isn't enough trust in the present World for that and we're stuck with them until some future golden era when all the World is prosperous and happy.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
16
patslatt said:
hopi watcher said:
patslatt said:
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
..... An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.
Just as a matter of curiosity, do you not consider Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowich etc, fanatics? Would you give them a loaded gun to play with? Your whole thinking is essentially racist straight out of the whacky world of the BNF. If the west is genuinely concerned about the proliferation of nucelar weapons then it should lead by example.
Bush etc were right wing ideologues of the neo-conservative movement. Without any evidence and ignoring the advice of Europe,they hoped that Iraq would become a democracy after the invasion,in the same way that Japan and Germany did so after WWII. They failed to see the obvious flaws in this plan: democracy in the Middle East means clerically orientated rule,which usually is backward and medieval in outlook,while a democracy imposed by the invader would lack full legitimacy.

The plan possibly could have succeeded had the military's request for more soldiers to maintain public order in post invasion Iraq been granted. Rumsfeld was too arrogant and Bush too obtuse to take the military advice. The collapse of Iraq's public order and the insurgency were massively boosted by the incredibly stupid decision to disband the Baathist government structure and army before an alternative government and security system could be set up.

To put this in perspective,when Japan surrenderd in WWII,the Americans asked the Japanese army to maintain order in occupied countries until the American army arrived. Bear in mind that the Japanese army's massacres of civilians (180,000 killed in a single day by the retreating Japanese army in Manila) made the German SS look gentle. That underlines the importance of keeping public order, the first responsibility of power.

Bush has been mugged by reality in Iraq and Condi Rice's influence over foreign policy has increased,with a restoration of a multilateral approach to international relations.

THe Bush government in its early day's was ideological,and while that can blind people to reality,it is a far cry from the kind of political fanaticism evident in the Middle East.
.
 

hopi watcher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
1,000
patslatt said:
hopi watcher said:
patslatt said:
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
..... An officer named Sergey voted against the attack. Maybe World War III was prevented by Sergey.
Just as a matter of curiosity, do you not consider Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowich etc, fanatics? Would you give them a loaded gun to play with? Your whole thinking is essentially racist straight out of the whacky world of the BNF. If the west is genuinely concerned about the proliferation of nucelar weapons then it should lead by example.
Bush etc were right wing ideologues of the neo-conservative movement. Without any evidence and ignoring the advice of Europe,they hoped that Iraq would become a democracy after the invasion,in the same way that Japan and Germany did so after WWII. They failed to see the obvious flaws in this plan: democracy in the Middle East means clerically orientated rule,which usually is backward and medieval in outlook,while a democracy imposed by the invader would lack full legitimacy.

The plan possibly could have succeeded had the military's request for more soldiers to maintain public order in post invasion Iraq been granted. Rumsfeld was too arrogant and Bush too obtuse to take the military advice. The collapse of Iraq's public order and the insurgency were massively boosted by the incredibly stupid decision to disband the Baathist government structure and army before an alternative government and security system could be set up.

To put this in perspective,when Japan surrenderd in WWII,the Americans asked the Japanese army to maintain order in occupied countries until the American army arrived. Bear in mind that the Japanese army's massacres of civilians (180,000 killed in a single day by the retreating Japanese army in Manila) made the German SS look gentle. That underlines the importance of keeping public order, the first responsibility of power.

Bush has been mugged by reality in Iraq and Condi Rice's influence over foreign policy has increased,with a restoration of a multilateral approach to international relations.

THe Bush government in its early day's was ideological,and while that can blind people to reality,it is a far cry from the kind of political fanaticism evident in the Middle East.

This talk of racism is silly. I mentioned that China's government is stable and disciplined,implying that it can be trusted with nukes,unlike most unstable third world countries in flashpoints like the Middle East. As for giving up nukes, there simply isn't enough trust in the present World for that and we're stuck with them until some future golden era when all the World is prosperous and happy.
Do you now concede that nuclear weapons are dangerous on the basis of their destructive power and that no matter where they are or under who's control they are, they are the same threat to the rest of us?

The argument that one country or another should be denied access to this power because that country is more likely to use the weapons is phoney, plain and simple. All that is happening in the Mid East is that the west do not want any sort of parity of power because the option to invade countries so as to rob their oil must be available and clearly if Iran became a nuclear power, such an invasion would no longer be an option.

Should the US suddenly find itself short of oil that country would become as unstable as anywhere elses and I don't need to remind you that they have a nuclear arsenal capable of ending existance on this planet. People concerned about nuclear weapons should concentrate their efforts to have all such weapons decommissioned and stop diverting attention away from that position with bogus scaremongering and by advocating that selected countries should be attacked for trying to attain such weapons which they feel they need to protect themselves. Iraq is the most recent hard lesson that the US is ready to use lethal force to serve it's own ends. If the US has nothing but good intentions for the rest of humankind then it could very easily lead a process of agreed decommissioning of nuclear weapons. It doesn't because it gives them control over most if not all the world and in the absence of the US and the rest agreeing to get rid of these weapons then the rest are perfectly correct to seek to attain them purely to restore some level of parity. At the moment the US has a gun to the head of the world.

Iran has set out on the road to democracy with elections etc. It is not perfect but it is a start. If allowed to develop, full democracy will take hold , world history teaches that. However, with the constant threats from the US and Israel, that development is being stunted as the system throws up reactionary forces in response to the US's posturings.

BTW, it is a well received argument that the more countries that have nuclear weapons the less are the chances that they will be used.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,637
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
PronsiasPilate said:
patslatt said:
After all the people who make the determination of who is entitled/not entitled to have nukes are the anglo saxon bully boys of the US/UK.

So it's ok for CIA client states like israel or india to have nukes. but nobody else.

FOR THE RECORD

contrary to your allegations -

The USA (not Iran) -

Is run by a cabal of religious fundamentalists.
this cabal are war criminals as per the Nuremburg jurisprudence
the USA has instigated an illegal war of agression against iraq, the supreme international war crime as per Nuremburg.

The USA has used nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of innocent people, genocidally murdering them.

Iran has NEVER never invaded another sovereign state.

The list of countries invaded by the usa is as follows;

COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. Clashes on border with Syria.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, covert operation CIA airstrikes on Al Qaeda refuge villages kill civilians
SOMALIA 2007 Missiles, naval AC-130 strikes; naval blockade and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels
Iran's government is primitive,yes,hence too unstable to be a nuclear power. Pakistan may also be too unstable but I give it the benefit of the doubt for the pfresent. India's decision to go nuclear was arguably reasonable given that it has unsettled border claims with nuclear armed China,which led to war in the 1960s, but the real reason for going nuclear was the chauvinism of Hindu extremist parties. India's government has the sophistication to run a safe,secure nuclear weapons programme.

As for America's international adventures, it acts as world policeman and is encouraged to do so by regional powers. Does the world need a policeman or should it be allowed to go its own way even when the consequences are dire?

America is not a colonialist power and has withdrawn from all the countries it invaded in South America,except for the largely desert territories captured from Mexico in California and the southwest states.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top