posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:17 PM
The questions to ask are simple:
1. If you don't need it for power, why do you need it?
2. If you -want- it for power, why can't some other nation do your refining?
3. If you want it for weapons, why have you not been overt and honest in your attempts thus far to justify their gain?
4. WHY do you want them for weapons if you are not threatened by the like?
Israel may be seen as something between a Mad Dog and Satan by the Arabs. But it should be remembered that except when threatened by an unbalanced
regime in Iraq. Or in Ethiopia. Israel has not made any overt attack on the Arabs since 1982.
Indeed, it is _Islamic_ peoples who war among themselves. Breaking a key tenet of The Faith. And the chief party responsible for the majority of
Iran's misery in the 1980's is now no longer a threat.
Does Iran seek a 'strategic counterforce' against Afghanistan? Russia? Saudi Arabia?
One of the things Iran forgets is that when you are surrounded by barbarians barely able to rub two sticks together to create fire without
international technical assistance, ANY attempt to acquire WMD can only be viewed as but a desire to have COUNTER VALUE with which to threaten the
wealth of those nations which are in fact responsible nuclear powers.
I say 'responsible' because not only do they have tactical means to avoid the necessity of first use. But they also have sufficient (vulnerable)
mass to not want to get in a potshot war with a low-rend sandbox like Iran.
Nukes are a waste of time if you are not facing a nuclear threat state. They have /enormous/ waste management and stockpile renewal problems inherent
to their maintenance. And, at least for a responsible state, they do not lift from the shoulders the burden of a conventional defense. But merely
add to it.
Conversely, I think the U.S.' biggest problems are-
1. The Iranians are ten times smarter than the Iraqi's were. If only by virtual of witnessing Osirak's demise.
2. The idiocy of 'WMD in Iraq' has forever poisoned the cup of trust inherent to our military action there rather than in continued pursuit of
3. The Saudi's have East Wind MRBM with nuclear tips.
4. The Israeli's are seen as slavering monsters whose removal from the ME is a matter of pride. Their strength in turn being that of purely U.S.
5. If we attack Iran, we rob them of a /pride/ (nationalism being the hubris that is 'a wealth of belief' in something bigger than yourself because
your personal existence is so excremental) inherent to think Arabs are someone. When in point of truth, by the actions of their own leadership, they
remain among the poorest of the rich nations on the planet.
This is not Austria or the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia people. The reason we 'do not want to be seen to be negotiating' is because ultimately we
cannot give legitimacy to a threat that has been allowed previously to sponsor terrorism throughout that part of the world (Lebanon, both the Barracks
and the Embassy were Iranian bought and paid for).
But nor can we wait until Hitler has his tank divisions lined up on the Ardennes border before deciding to eliminate the threat. If it's going to be
done, it needs to occur before the Iranians think "If only we push a little harder..." as a fucntion of 'sporting' psychology. Indeed, it has to
be done before we blow radioactive yellow cake and steam all over their North 40.
And that means adopting a policy which says that the Iranians don't deserve to have Nuclear Weapons because of 'who they are right now'. Rather
than what their previously unacknowledged activities for the past 20 years have made them.
Because that history is not known. And labelling them savages unfit for a Promethean Gift of Nuclear Fire will not go down well with a world that has
traditionally seen U.S. as advocates of the underdog.
The only thing those people respect is force. How many feet per second worth of hot air do you think 'the whole world telling them otherwise' is
worth to the Iranians compared to 16 JDAMs falling where they are most needed?