Ed Koch-Iran already has nukes

Let's chill the tone guys.

Staying away from the political statements, I would to share my first ATS comment.

Ed Koch is not in a position to know that type of information, and if he was fed that info, then it was for a purpose. I have great respect for Ed Koch, but right now he is nothing but a mouthpiece for whatever agenda is being pushed. The question we should be discussing (without political jabbing) is "whose" agenda? This is a Conspiracy Discussion... let's see who has the best/most feasible rationale for "why" Koch? And "who" fed him the Info? Bush and Co? Don't be so sure! Think about it and reply.

I also think the question of whether Iran has Long Range, Medium, or Short Range Nukes, or no nukes, may be a mute issue if we are looking at the possible US first strike's post hit effects in the region.

If we strike Iran, it will require more than a single strike with a tactical nuke to take out their program. The program is spread across the country and is in populated areas. We will kill foreign techs, including Russian and Chinese.

The issue the US faces tactically and in long term strategic goals is "how much" force do we use? If we make so called surgical strikes, we will leave Iran with the force and means to strike US forces in the region with conventional weapons (missiles , air strikes, Chem/Bio weapons). They will also use their trump card to instigate Civil War in Iraq. But if we make a devastating mass hit on Iran using two or three tactical nukes along with Air Strikes and SF hits on Air bases, Barracks, C&C, rail, bridges, missile sites, fuel depots, radar, all runways, and air defense, then like Iraq... we will "own" the results. Never mind the world's reaction. Just focus on what kind of strike the US would use.

Now, some will say that using Israel as a proxy for the strikes will keep the US above the fray. I do not think the world is that naive.. a strike from Tel Aviv is the same as one called by D.C. If... IF they strike for us, then the strikes will be somewhat limited, as they will not be able to make the non-nuke strikes and SF hits on the level the US is capable of. This leaves Iran in the same strike back mode as I mentioned above. Israel making the strike for /with the US is also a strategic mistake... for all the same reasons it was during Gulf War I. I hope I don't have to explain "why" to the majority of responders.

Consider the issues created by a Nuke hit on Iran because we (or Ed Koch, LOL) believes they have Nukes. First, think of the effects downwind... not politically but in the prevailing winds and Jet Stream carrying fallout across India, SW Russia, Japan, China and SE Asia...especially during the monsoons in India/Burma. SE Asia. Next consider the immediate effects on Oil Production from Iran, and who, if not the US, who will step in to rebuild and own the future production? EU? Russia? China? a Combination? Will a US strike cause instability throughout the region? Will Pakistan see a revolt? What will happen in Iraq and our stake in the Oil Fields there? What level of strikes can we expect from unknowns/terrorists on pipelines, oil storage, etc?

I'm not saying the US will not strike because of the issues above, but I think on a strategic level we may lose in the long run by making those strikes. I also do not believe the US can take out their entire capability with Conventional weapons. If we leave them with Warheads... we will start WWIII-IV.

For the record I am a Democrat. But after reading these threads I want all to know that I will not participate in the mud slinging or moronic political reactions I've read. We can represent our views without attacking. Right now the real question is why Ed Koch?

GS







[edit on 7-1-2006 by SpeedsterGS]

Originally posted by SpeedsterGS
But after reading these threads I want all to know that I will not participate in the mud slinging or moronic political reactions I've read. We can represent our views without attacking.

GS

If I had room in my siggy I would ask to put this in it. Well said.

The issue the US faces tactically and in long term strategic goals is "how much" force do we use? If we make so called surgical strikes, we will leave Iran with the force and means to strike US forces in the region with conventional weapons (missiles , air strikes, Chem/Bio weapons).

Well...

The question you must ask yourself is. How much force do we have to use to win ?


To me it is what ever it takes, what is it to you ?

Originally posted by jajabinks
As far as providing a link, I just did, it was the former mayor of NY he was on "World with Neil Cavuto" and that british guy was sitting i for Cavuto, after BG asked about containing Irans nuke program Koch made the comment that because Pakistan had sold Iran and other ME nations nuke material-Iran probably already had nuke weapons..

Umm, no.
I saw that program Friday afternoon.
Ed Koch made no assertion that Iran "probably" already had nuclear weapons. Ed Koch asserted that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and that Iran already has the means to deliver them if and when obtained. You are somewhat correct on his assertion about Pakistan, except that Ed Koch did not assert that Pakistan has given those nuclear proliferating nations nuclear materials. What Ed Koch asserted was that Pakistan has a nuclear scientist that has given plans out for building a nuclear weapon(s), not nuclear materials.







seekerof

IRAN IS WARMONGERING

what a joke-who has Iran attacked-nobody, they have killed NO Americans, the Americans hate them because they make rhetorick against the Zionist Racist Aphartied state and arm Hezbollah-who resists the policies of Israel..other than that whats Americas big gripe with Iran anyways? Iran makes anti-zionist rhetoric, not anti-USA rhetoric, they only critisize the USA for supporting Zionism

as far as this rule that the discussion cannot get political..how do we draw the line on that? War on terrorism is POLITICS, it's about opposing political ideologies clashing, the Americans say they fight for democrasy, we say BS, they fight for control and imperialism, i realize I'm new but may I suggest we relax this rule, it seems unrealistic

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Yes and the people of Iran who suffer because of there Government throwing all there cash into Militaristic endeavors are going to be mighty pissed when all that out dated war museam crap is reduced to rubble on the first bombing raid (supposing Iran pushes us into War).


The young people of Iran have had a gut full of there War mongering Leaders and will welcome a regeim change even more than the Iraqis i beleive.

I dont want to see the obligation of Disarming Iran placed solely on the US, or being forced on Israel, this is shaping up as a UN job each day that gos buy, lets hope Iran keeps Sabre rattling and the UN might at last do something other than dodging and talking.

Originally posted by jajabinks
as far as this rule that the discussion cannot get political..how do we draw the line on that? War on terrorism is POLITICS, it's about opposing political ideologies clashing, the Americans say they fight for democrasy, we say BS, they fight for control and imperialism, i realize I'm new but may I suggest we relax this rule, it seems unrealistic

I would emphasize that as a new member, it would behoove you to adhere to the board policies rather than revising them.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

Mod Note: PTS Is Wide Open For Business – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: ATS & Censorship – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

Originally posted by jajabinks
Iran makes anti-zionist rhetoric, not anti-USA rhetoric, they only critisize the USA for supporting Zionism

Yeah, shouting "death to America!", is a very interesting form of criticism.

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Yes and the people of Iran who suffer because of there Government throwing all there cash into Militaristic endeavors are going to be mighty pissed when all that out dated war museam crap is reduced to rubble on the first bombing raid (supposing Iran pushes us into War).

Well, iran only spends 5% of its GDP on military, reduced from 30% under shah's ruling

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
The young people of Iran have had a gut full of there War mongering Leaders and will welcome a regime change even more than the Iraqis i beleive.

well, you wish. that's what the new-cons used to say before us went into iraq.

iranians have every right to enrich uranium on their soil, something they have been able to achieve on their own (not quite). Nuclear Fuel Cycle = Pride of Nation. we just cannot both liberate iranians, and deprive them of their rights.

you just cannot take it away from the people, I believe, as I still have contact with a few in iran, pro/anti government, youth, are all behind their leaders on this particular issue.

us forces overstretched in iraq, iraq lost to iran, we might see a compromise coming.

I have a feeling, the first bill to be approved by iraqi parliament will be a timetable for withdrawal of all foreign troops by some time let's say end of 2006.

any attempt on iranian nuke facilities will lead us all into a war, why? we have just destroyed iranians 23 years of hard work, billions of $$.



RESPECT

JaJa, where are you from if you dont mind I ask?
I am constantly preaching to fellow Americans to view our actions from outside our borders, free from our crap news, and patriotic spin, and you seem to be doing this.
I am not advocating your position by any means, but you make some great points.
I think if everyone approaches these issues as HUMANS before we approach them as Americans, Britons, French, Iraqis, etc, we would all meet somewhere in the middle, rather than just bickering.

You can be certain that Iran doesn't have nukes for one very simple reason, Israel has not attacked! Israel by far has the best intelligence organization in the middle east and the world. If Israel thought that Iran was on the brink of nukes or had even bought one or two from Pakistan, then they would have atttacked Iran by now. Just as they did against Iraq. Israel's greatest fear is Iran with nukes, they have said as much. Sharon as well as every PM before or after him will not let Iran become a nuclear threat to Israel. In this regard the USA will not be able to restrain Israel, nor would the USA try to. It doesn't matter if Iran is a threat to Israel and the USA or not. What matters is Iran's Leaders are a preceived threat and cannot be taken likely. This presumption of a threat with the idiotic bantering of Iran's President has the wrong people nervous. This is a very volitale world we live in were countries like Israel and the USA cannot afford to sit idle while a possible threat is looming. It is not so much Iran having Nukes as it is the Leaders of Iran having Nukes and the possiblities of them fallening into the hands of radicals. Neither Israel nor the USA can take that chance.

the problem i have here is that Iran has just as much right to protect its borders as Israel and the US. why is it that the rest of the world says nothing about israels nukes but is adamant that Iran cant have them.

All this, btw, by the only country in the world to have ever used nukes... Twice

why is it that the rest of the world says nothing about israels nukes but is adamant that Iran cant have them.

Perhaps because Iran is a signatory of a little thing called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is enforced by the five members of the UN Security Council, the US just happens to be one of those members. It might also interest you to know that Israel is not a signatory of the NPT.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by WestPoint23]

from ur own link

Second pillar: disarmament
Article VI and the preamble indicate that the NWS parties pursue to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles. In Article I, the NWS declare not to "induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to ... acquire nuclear weapons." A preemptive-strike doctrine and otherwise threatening postures can be viewed as induction by non-NWS parties. Article X states that any state can withdraw from the treaty if they feel that "extraordinary events", for example a perceived threat. force them to do so

Emphasis Mine

Are you now going to tell me that Iran doesnt have the right to identify threats to itself?

I'm sorry but when it comes to reports on any country having nukes the last people I am going to trust is a member of the U.S. government (past or present).

care to share why israel didnt sign NPT, because theyd be breaking the law from having illegal nuclear weapons.

you act as though they came out a said "we are going to pursue nukes" first off they have willingly suspended their nuclear programs for months on in while we investigated based on a suspision. second off they have NOT broken any laws in the NPT if you actually read it, NPT can not restrict a countries peaceful nuclear capabilities and pursuits, which we did to them. they did it willingly, why? idk apparently because they wanted to try and stop a war with the US maybe, though i really dont know why. they did though and we have proved nothing in over a year.

second they were pressured into the NPT which israel hasnt seen such pressure. japan threatened to cut funding to oil field production if they didnt sign. they had no choice but to sign. israel again hasnt had such pressure.

unfair treatment is a big issue and a cause of terrorists in the first place. they are anti american because we are taking shots at them and befriending israel. if we did this in an unbias manner, more could be solved.

Are you now going to tell me that Iran doesnt have the right to identify threats to itself?

Oh it does, it just that Iran having nukes might threaten it’s perceived enemy(s) and it could lead to something which we all don't want. But keep in mind that Iran has not withdrawn from the NTP nor do they seem to want to do so, as such, they are bound to it’s terms and any program to acquire or produce Nuclear Weapons is illegal

they cant back out of the NPT, they would have their funding for oil field cut and have major problems with maintaining their economy. look up why iran cant back out of the NPT

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Oh it does, it just that Iran having nukes might threaten it’s perceived enemy(s) and it could lead to something which we all don't want. But keep in mind that Iran has not withdrawn from the NTP nor do they seem to want to do so, as such, they are bound to it’s terms and any program to acquire or produce Nuclear Weapons is illegal

So Israel having nukes and threatening her perceived enemies is just fine and dandy in your book.


Try and remember this
"whats good for the goose is good for the gander"

they cant back out of the NPT

I do believe they can, but my concern is not whether Iran can withdraw from the NPT or not, my concern is that currently Iran attempting to acquire Nuclear Weapons is illegal and should not be allowed.

So Israel having nukes and threatening her perceived enemies is just fine and dandy in your book.

When has Israel threatened Iran with Nuclear Weapons or otherwise ? When has Israel not recognized the state of Iran? When has Israel called for the destruction of Iran? When has Israel declared that Iran should be wiped of the map? Need I remind you that Israel has reportedly had Nuclear Weapons for over 30 years, they have not used nor threatened to use them against Iran in those 30 years, now all of a sudden Iran feels threatened? C’mon don't be so naive.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by WestPoint23]