Strike may have unplanned results

Strike may have unplanned results

www.jpost.com

During a press conference at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, Mullen said, “From a policy standpoint, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, [or] nuclear capability.”

He added, “I’ve also been clear, them getting a weapon and/or the outbreak of a conflict would be a big, big problem for all of us. And I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike, that are pretty hard to be specific about in a pretty volatile region that’s pretty hard to predict.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

USA is looking for a solution through diplomatic means and sanctions. Israel is talking about unprecedented level of cooperation with USA on the Iran issue. However, the crucial words used by the Israelis these days are "crippling sanctions". Here, the American and Israeli interpretation of crippling sanctions might differ.

Another crucial point observed in this article here is that Adm. Mullen will meet many of the senior Israeli military commanders.I don't know whether such a meeting is unprecedented or not. Is the Obama administration persuading the Israeli government to halt the steps towards another potentially destabilizing regional war?

www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I've said this in another post on Iran and I will say it again.

Under international law the US is at war with Iran. They seized our embassy which is legally considered an act of war. We simply have to open hostilities on our terms when we decide it's in our best interests.

A simple declaration of war will nullify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and we can do what we need to Iran to end the Islamic Republic.

Iran having or about to have nuclear weapons will give us a reason. My best.

Originally posted by airforce47
I've said this in another post on Iran and I will say it again.

Under international law the US is at war with Iran. They seized our embassy which is legally considered an act of war. We simply have to open hostilities on our terms when we decide it's in our best interests.

A simple declaration of war will nullify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and we can do what we need to Iran to end the Islamic Republic.

Iran having or about to have nuclear weapons will give us a reason. My best.

You do remember that it was the US and her allies that overthrew the king of Iran and installed his successor who was favorable to the west which means he terrorized his people. The guys secret police and his ruthlessness is what brought into being the religious clerics.

reply to post by order in chaos

Seems to me that the concept of Iran 'nuking-up' simply provides incentive for everyone...Israel and the US included...to play nice. Just like carry permits on hand guns enforce good manners.

I'm a lot more worried about Pakistan being a nuclear power than Iran, though I don't like either regime.

reply to post by hoghead cheese



Shhhh! Don't ruin it for the people who don't know their history and most don't want to know about how the US is responsible for the Iran of today. If they hadn't aided the coup in Iran and installed a puppet then Iran and the ME might be a different place.


"Peace through superior firepower" the US foreign policy moto

reply to post by DEEZNUTZ


Please don't tell me that it was ONLY the US that caused the upheaval in Iran. The KGB had just as much if not more responsibility for the Mulah's uprising in the original Jihad in Iran against Shah Pulavi! They financed the Mulahs and forced the Shah to remove the Mulahs from power. They also financed the rest of the revolution that brought about the present regime in Iran. The US didn't help but they are certainly NOT the entire reason for the problem.
Zindo

Originally posted by order in chaos
USA is looking for a solution through diplomatic means and sanctions.

Diplomacy is negotiating. Sanctions are like throwing a punch.

So the USA is basically saying "do what we want" while having their fist drawn back. Children get into serious trouble doing that at school these days. I wonder where they get it from?

Any country who possesses nuclear weapons has no right whatsoever to tell another nation they cant have them, unfortunately. It's called hipocrisy.

And saying "but we are good and they are bad" just doesn't cut it. If the US Government wants to lead the world, they should lead be example, not force.

A great line from the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" is "I think what Gust is worried about is that eventually God will be on both sides". Meaning those that think their actions are holly and just are soo diluded by their own ideology and religion that they think they are good when in fact they are the evil ones.

The world powers need to stop this hypocrite approach to foreign policy. No wonder those that are viewed as lesser aren't playing along.

If you treat someone like crap don't be surprised when they also treat you like crap in return. Eye for an Eye and all.

maybe its just me but under the second amendment it says Right to bare arms. now the time when this was written the people that wrote it knew full well about cannons and extra large bombs. they said ARMS to cover anything that can used as a weapon. Atomic Bombs are ARMS. now just because you have weapons doesn't mean you use them. but to deny a nation the rights afforded to me and my country is wrong. now i do believe if you cannot build it yourself and take care of it then you do not need it. it is not my place or my government to dictate policy for Iran.

yes i know, big can of worms for sure but understandings that go with responsibility must be known and if the choice to use such weapons is taken then annihilation must follow. the USA got away with dumping 2 nukes on japan to end aggression in the worlds eye. but in the case of one ever being used again if its not defensive, your gone, end of story.

it is sad when things go wrong in the world but it happens. you don't control life, you live within it.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


It is a very uncommon hold on the events. Can you point to books or links for my education ?

reply to post by Manouche


Here's some history of the Shah and the Soviet interference as far back as 1917. Although it does not mention the KGB's intervention by name, it's hard to separate the Russian influence and the use of the KGB to incite and arm the opposition during that time. Both the CIA and the KGB were involved.

History of the Shah and the Downfall

Zindo

Influencing the state of affairs and financing the Mullahs and the revolution are very different in my book. I wanted this cleared up, thank you.