Does This Straw Break the Camels Back

Present situation aside, I would like to have someone state what they believe a 'smoking gun WOULD be'. And I hope you don't say mushroom cloud!

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Present situation aside, I would like to have someone state what they believe a 'smoking gun WOULD be'. And I hope you don't say mushroom cloud!

How about concrete proof of nuclear weapons production? This could be the weapons themselves, or the equipment to make them, or the waste left behind after their construction. There are so many things we could find to prove their existence that have yet to be found, and still there are people screaming to attack Iran first.

Here's a good question: what if Iran has nuclear weaponry, and a preemptive attack doesn't destroy them? Now you've got a shaken and annoyed nuclear hornet's nest who has just been given justification in defending itself, which is sitting a warhead's throw from one of the USA's sworn allies. Not a pretty picture, is it? Yet the hasty, irrational, and undereducated still call for a first strike, hoping to spark an Iranian Missile Crisis with the same people they refer to as emotionless murderers and fundamentalist nutjobs.

Nuclear weapons aren't respected by this generation nearly as much as they should be. Nuclear war is not regular war. Nuclear war is as far beyond war as war is beyond pro wrestling. Anyone who says different is delusional.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Present situation aside, I would like to have someone state what they believe a 'smoking gun WOULD be'. And I hope you don't say mushroom cloud!

Well, aside from whether or not this latest buzz is a smoking gun?

I guess I would consider it something of a smoking gun if Iran was threatening to do things it couldn't possibly do without nukes, if they were rapidly acquiring strategic missiles for the delivery of nukes, if they were acquiring multiple means of developing nukes, and if their sympathizers around the world were gathering in the streets around Western embassies chanting "the mushroom cloud is on its way".

If all of that happened, I suppose I'd consider it a smoking gun...


One more thing, for the poster above me who is afraid of what might happen if we try to stop Iran, first let me concede that war is not the only answer and generally should never be the first answer. That being said, your logic for not doing anything, as you have presented it, is highly suspect.

Suppose I bonk you on the head, kidnap you, and take you out into the woods. I let you out of the trunk of my car, and I've got a knife. I instruct you to stand against a tree so I can tie you up. By your logic, you don't fight, because if you fight you might get stabbed. Ever stop to consider what could happen if you don't fight?

[edit on 14-5-2006 by AntiHero]

Nuclear weapons aren't respected by this generation nearly as much as they should be. Nuclear war is not regular war. Nuclear war is as far beyond war as war is beyond pro wrestling. Anyone who says different is delusional.

That is exactly why this situation is being taken so seriously!

Originally posted by Thousand

How about concrete proof of nuclear weapons production? This could be the weapons themselves, or the equipment to make them, or the waste left behind after their construction. There are so many things we could find to prove their existence that have yet to be found, and still there are people screaming to attack Iran first.

problem is thousand,
If you had enough money, time, manpower and DESIRE you could hide it.

Originally posted by AntiHero
That being said, your logic for not doing anything, as you have presented it, is highly suspect.

I never said to do nothing. I said that the US should be sure of what they are about to do before they do it. Absolutely sure.

Originally posted by AntiHero
Suppose I bonk you on the head, kidnap you, and take you out into the woods. I let you out of the trunk of my car, and I've got a knife. I instruct you to stand against a tree so I can tie you up. By your logic, you don't fight, because if you fight you might get stabbed. Ever stop to consider what could happen if you don't fight?

That's quite the scenario you describe, but it's not the one the US is in. What the US is faced with is a man, much smaller than they are, who is accused of having a gun yet steadfastly denies he has it. Nobody is tied up.

What I am saying is that unless the US is sure that man has a gun, it would be best not to shoot him first, considering the US is guilty of already shooting an innocent man, despite how unruly that man may have been.

Call me a sympathizer or a liberal or whatever, but I don't see the point of the US attacking a fiercely strong enemy while its military has no way of truly defeating it (aside from levelling it), especially if that enemy turns out to be a closet nuclear power.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
That is exactly why this situation is being taken so seriously!

Seriously maybe, but not responsibly. Too many are calling for something they don't understand. Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities will not make things right, it's not a cure. All it will do is at best disarm Iran of a few nuclear weapons and all of its nuclear power facilities; at worst, it will be an outright attack on an innocent nation, one which is far more formidable a foe than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

I don't advocate inaction. I advocate responsible, sane action. The US is already possessed of a great number of Middle Eastern headaches. The last thing it needs is an aneurysm.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
problem is thousand,
If you had enough money, time, manpower and DESIRE you could hide it.

This is true. But is it the case? I don't know. Neither do most people. It's because of this that I prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than to push for a possible hasty and deadly mistake.

The Straw that broke the Camel's back was the Straw that as UK Foreign Secretary said an attack on Iran was "inconceivable" and called the suggestion of a nuclear attack on Iran "nuts".

This Straw, Jack Straw, was sacked as UK Foreign Secretary, in a cabinet reshuffle by Blair, and demoted to a unimportant domestic posting. Straw's surprise replacement is Margaret Beckett, former Enviroment Minister, and the UK's first female foreign secretary.

Reportedly, this move to sack Straw was put upon Blair by pressure from The Bush Administration, angered by Straw's comments on the question of attacking Iran. He did not reportedly, fit into the plan.

If you want to see the Straw that broke the Camel's back, that an attack on Iran is planned, it is not by finding highly enriched uranium as claimed by those who decide it is alright for US, UK, Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan to have nukes but Iran to have nukes is not, but is to be found by looking at Jack Straw's comments, and looking what happened to him a short while after.

An attack on Iran is on the table, it is the main course....and the dessert, the afters, will be horrifying.

I'm not sure how much you all read actual world news... but this is my opinion of this situation.

Firstly, Iran has already stated that there would be "Not One Drop" of oil to the US should we take military actions against them. They would burn those oil fields before they would let us get our hands on them.

Second, if Iran really does have nuclear warheads (or even dirty bombs) and a reliable missle system, then we need to think of all our military men and women that are in Iraq. Also think of the fact that China and Russia may side with Iran.

Thirdly, the US dollar has been taking a tumble and there is alot of talk in the world community of changing to the Euro as the major world currency. The only thing at this point that is keeping the dollar's head above water (barely) is OIL. Oil is traded around the world in USD. Alot of countries are pushing for that to change to Euro and would love for the dollar and the US to fall on it's face. War with Iran would stop oil from coming into the US and around the world the dollar would turn to toilet paper. I'm not so sure you all realize exactly what that would be like in the US... but I promise you that canned goods and plenty of ammunition is what it would take to survive till some other form of formal government could be established in the US. At the very least it would turn the US to a Military State and then we would be under President Bush's rule till order was restored or someone rid him of office because under a Military State all elections are called off.

This is a very serious matter and the world should try everything it can to work this out with peaceful measures without any talk of war. We are in Iraq now due to our President lying to us and the world. Our sons and daughters die there daily for no reason whatsoever and some are talking about another war. I think we need to go to war with the biggest terrorist the world has ever seen: BUSH!

Originally posted by Thousand
That's quite the scenario you describe, but it's not the one the US is in. What the US is faced with is a man, much smaller than they are, who is accused of having a gun yet steadfastly denies he has it. Nobody is tied up.

Close. It's not a matter of accused. Iran DOES NOT have a gun, YET. Iran is accused of, and appears to be in the process of picking up a gun, and although they deny it, they keep threatening to shoot our us and our friends.

So, the US is either going to take them before they get the gun, or end up held at gunpoint, and which point we're either going to be in a very serious fight or get tied up.

an innocent man

What exactly was Saddam Hussien innocent of??? I don't think we've got the evidence to hit him for J-walking or driving without a license, but other than that it's hard to find a law he hasn't wiped his bum with.

Call me a sympathizer or a liberal or whatever, but I don't see the point of the US attacking a fiercely strong enemy while its military has no way of truly defeating it (aside from levelling it), especially if that enemy turns out to be a closet nuclear power.

Ten seconds ago they were much smaller than us, now they're fiercely strong. Pick one. Then you assume the very premise you are denying as justification for not going to war.

So what you're saying is "we shouldn't attack Iran because we can't prove they have nukes, and we definately shouldn't attack Iran if they HAVE got nukes" well great, the first premise knocks out preemption and the second one knocks out any kind of defense against any demands they may make once they have nukes, so you've basically just reasserted your position of never fighting, no matter how screwed you are if you don't.

Call me a warmonger, a neocon, or whatever but where I come from you don't say you're gonna do something unless you're gonna do it, and it dang well serves you right if somebody busts you in the chops for saying you're gonna. Iran says they're gonna destroy us and our allies. In my neck of the woods, them's fightin' words.

My policy has kept me from getting stabbed. It saved my life. It works.

Well said AntiHero,


I've started to notice that talking to these people is like banging your head against a wall.

The only thing they want to do is give up Czechoslovakia. Only problem is, this time the Enemy doesn't want it! That's what's so amazing, the one's who cry foul about wire tapping are the same one's who want the UN to take over everything, thereby wiping out our sovereignty. Gun Control anyone?

Thankfully, there are thousand's of people in the Pentagon whose sole job in life is to protect America. They see past passivity and are even now planning our protection!

www.theherald.co.uk...


Sorry, there is no peaceful way out of this one. We reap what we sow.

Originally posted by AntiHero
What exactly was Saddam Hussien innocent of??? I don't think we've got the evidence to hit him for J-walking or driving without a license, but other than that it's hard to find a law he hasn't wiped his bum with.

He is innocent of the one charge that lead to his downfall: that he had weapons of mass destruction (oh, how tired of those three words I am). Every other law that he broke he could have been called on, this is true, but the main reason for the invasion, no matter how many ways or times the current Administration has tried to change it, was that Saddam had WMDs that he was going to use on the US. These were never found, and Saddam - as "evil" a man as he is - still stands innocent of the charge that has left his once stable country a ruined, terrorist-spawning shadow of its former self.

Originally posted by AntiHero
Ten seconds ago they were much smaller than us, now they're fiercely strong. Pick one. Then you assume the very premise you are denying as justification for not going to war.

They are both, just as many countries on earth are. As I mentioned before, there are two types of war. Conventional, and Nuclear.

In a conventional war, the US will have nothing but failure against Iran, especially with its current overstrained military. Iran's own military will not shatter and run like Iraq's. They are well fed, well funded, and more than anything, loyal to their government and to its causes. Iran is fiercely strong.

In a nuclear war, there is no country that can hold a candle to the immense might wielded by the US. It's a well known fact that even if the continental United States was levelled into a 3000 mile wide glass parking lot, the US navy could still launch a counterattack of biblical proportions. There is no country that could withstand, or even adequately defend itself, against such an attack. In this regard, the US is a huge man compared to the rest of the world, especially such a slight man like Iran.

I don't need to pick one description when both are accurate.

Originally posted by AntiHero
So what you're saying is "we shouldn't attack Iran because we can't prove they have nukes, and we definately shouldn't attack Iran if they HAVE got nukes" well great, the first premise knocks out preemption and the second one knocks out any kind of defense against any demands they may make once they have nukes, so you've basically just reasserted your position of never fighting, no matter how screwed you are if you don't

In your haste to find a hole in my argument, you've missed the magical third option which I've implied but not said, as I have assumed it would be common knowledge or even common sense. Have you considered what should be done if it is discovered that Iran has been hiding a weapons program and is indeed planning an attack?

The US would have its justification. The blood everyone seems to want could be spilled with a clean conscience. Bomb them, nuke them, invade, I could care less. A preemptive strike is acceptable as long as the preemptive strike is justified. If you saw a man rushing you with a knife, screaming that he is going to kill you, plant a round in his forehead and be done with it. He would deserve all he received.

Originally posted by AntiHeroCall me a warmonger, a neocon, or whatever but where I come from you don't say you're gonna do something unless you're gonna do it, and it dang well serves you right if somebody busts you in the chops for saying you're gonna. Iran says they're gonna destroy us and our allies. In my neck of the woods, them's fightin' words

All and good, save for the fact that your neck of the woods is not the world stage where this conflict is playing out. There are a thousand and one more things to consider, which seems to escape a worrying amount of people. What works for one man won't for a hundred, and we're dealing with millions here.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Well said AntiHero, I've started to notice that talking to these people is like banging your head against a wall.

In that regard, you're not alone.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Sorry, there is no peaceful way out of this one. We reap what we sow.

Incredible choice of words, that. Just astounding.

Incredible choice of words, that. Just astounding.

That's because I'm not quite as one dimensional as you may think. I can see the reason's behind the whole thing. But, I won't elaborate, you'll just try to use your 'logic' to pick apart the overarching truth's. Thereby making yourself feel better for another day.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

That's because I'm not quite as one dimensional as you may think. I can see the reason's behind the whole thing. But, I won't elaborate, you'll just try to use your 'logic' to pick apart the overarching truth's. Thereby making yourself feel better for another day.

Make myself feel better? That's what this is all about?

No, this is not about me arguing with you to hear my own voice. This is about showing those who are so eager to kill that there may be other, less violent forms of problem solving. This is about diplomacy. This is about being innocent until proven guilty, about taking the high ground, etc, all things that the west is supposed to stand for, yet seems to have forgotten in the last 8 years.

Consider this me calling you out. I am of the belief that you actually know very little of this situation and are hiding you ignorance behind short quips and those god-awful annoying smilies. If you do in fact know all there is to know about the current situation, or better yet, how it could be solved, then please humor me and bury me under your all-encompassing knowledge. Present your overarching "truths". This is your chance. Prove me wrong.

No, I won't get down in the mud with you. I think I'll keep the High Ground!

As I stated in my previous post, the Pentagon is preparing the necessary strike's (there's a link). There's nothing either one of us can do about it. Except complain and hand wring I guess.

Unless there is a catalyst to start this, with the current drive of diplomacy I cannot see the Pentagons contigency plan other then just that, Contingency.


For us War Mongers. Here is a situation.

Situation One.

False Flag op or Terrorist Strike.

This situation would allow us to hit Iran under the pretext of the Global War on Terror. Iran is a Terrorist State and is a legal target.

Situation Two.

The current resolution floating around the UN is that Iran will be bribed to give up Nuclear Enrichment with the UNSC being dropped, a Light water reactor being set up and Enrichment moved to Russia.

This is not likely to happen as I cannot see a situation in which Iran will ever give up Nuclear Enrichment on its soil.

The up side for this is that failing to adhere to this resolution would be targetted sanctions and the resolution can be enforced militarily through the Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Situation Three

Israel finally launches a strike against Iran in the interest of Self Preservation, According to Jpost this could be within the next year and as early as tomorrow.

The US would be forced to mop up and provide support to Israel. Thus giving the pretext for war.

Situation Four.

Iran demonstrates Nuclear weapons capability, annouces a strategic Arsenal of 20+ Nuclear weapons and threatens to hold the world hostage.

Probably the least likely of the situations although I am a firm believer in that Iran already has Nuclear weapons and is building more.


What do you all think?

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
No, I won't get take the time to defend my arguments in a civilized discussion. I think I'll just drop some more similies and run from this thread, hoping Thousand will forget about me!

That's what you meant to say, right?

It's not like what I'm asking you to do is painful, or treasonous, or even a bad idea. I want to hear why you think launching a bunch of cruise missiles into nuclear facilities without knowing what's going on in them is better than trying to find out first, and being sure we're destroying weapons and not valuable and expensive civilian infrastructure.

Simple request.

without knowing what's going on in them is better than trying to find out first, and being sure we're destroying weapons and not valuable and expensive civilian infrastructure.

First of all, I don't care about 'valuable and expensive infrastructure'. Unless of course it belong's to America. And as far as 'trying to find out first', there's just not a whole lot more we can do at this point. Or maybe you have some suggestion's you could forward to the State Dept. We just can't afford to sit back and wait for New York and/or Washington to be vaporized by Hezbollah or Al Qaida.

There are a THOUSAND excuse's to do nothing, or next to nothing..

As to your fabricated quote, LOL... man you give yourself way to much credit. I ain't runnin' nowhere and I could care less whether you remember me, forget me, like me or hate me......

Ehud Olmert, the new Israeli prime minister, arrives in Washington tomorrow for his first summit with Bush. “Olmert will try to get Bush’s approval for an Israeli military strike on Iran in the event that the West backs down,” a well-informed Israeli source said. If diplomacy fails, however, the view inside the Pentagon is that American airstrikes would be quicker and more effective than anything the Israelis could muster.


From link...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

This reaffirms my third situation above.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
First of all, I don't care about 'valuable and expensive infrastructure'. Unless of course it belong's to America.

Well then, I have to thank you. You've answered all of my questions with that one line.