Israeli officials: Starve Iranians to stop nukes

Israeli Officals: Iran should be starved

West should adopt North Korean model vis-à-vis Tehran, hunger in Iran could prompt regime to 'consider whether nuclear adventure is worthwhile', Jerusalem official says

They want to starve the people into submission so that it will pressure the Iranian government to cease the alleged nuclear weapon program they have? And it would work like it did in North Korea? Uh, I'm pretty sure that NK has a nuke regardless of what sanctions were placed on them. In other words, it wasn't successful.

So now they are thinking of torturing the everyday citizen. I really doubt they could starve them, but it goes to show the mentality behind Iran's mortal enemies.

Do you think the Iranian administration or Nuclear scientists will starve? No.

The people will.

reply to post by satron

Dear satron,

Hi, again. Just wondering, do you think you jumping on this a bit too hard? Isn't making the people miserable what the sanctions are designed to do?

In North Korea, I thought they had an army so formidable, and people so conditioned, that a rebellion was unthinkable. I'm not sure that's the case in Iran. Anyway, I like that idea better than the glass parking lot option.

With respect,
Charles1952

How would they starve?
They know how to grow food....

reply to post by snowspirit


I don't think they would. I look at it like Iran calling for the destruction of Israel: Just words. But for some reason, Iran gets in more trouble opening up it's mouth.

If Iran said the same about Israel and they had enough clout where they could pull something like that off, (on a scale that the US and Israel could see through) how differently would that comment be received?

But what if Iran really aren't after "The Bomb" like they have been claiming, then you're gonna starve the good people of Iran because of nothing more than the Paranoia of Israel.

reply to post by ken10

Well, maybe, but I think the sanctions would be lifted the day Iran told the IAEA it could inspect wherever it wanted.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ken10

 

Well, maybe, but I think the sanctions would be lifted the day Iran told the IAEA it could inspect wherever it wanted.

From my understanding, the last time the IAEA went to Iran to inspect their nuclear research sites, there were places the inspectors weren't allowed to go into, and why should Iran just let them go anywhere they want? So the west can sabotage them further? Between scientists being assassinated, to deadly explosions on site, to computer viruses, why would it be a smart move for Iran to let inspectors anywhere they want to go?

reply to post by snowspirit

reply to post by satron

dear satron,

why should Iran just let them go anywhere they want?

Because they signed the nuclear NPT. And I suppose the big bully wants them to and has the backing of Europe in it's request. Sometimes it is just a matter of muscle.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by satron

 

dear satron,

why should Iran just let them go anywhere they want?

Because they signed the nuclear NPT. And I suppose the big bully wants them to and has the backing of Europe in it's request. Sometimes it is just a matter of muscle.

With respect,
Charles1952

So if they left the NPT everyone would be ok with them having nuke like Israel?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by satron

 

dear satron,

why should Iran just let them go anywhere they want?

Because they signed the nuclear NPT. And I suppose the big bully wants them to and has the backing of Europe in it's request. Sometimes it is just a matter of muscle.

With respect,
Charles1952

Well, with lack of evidence that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon means that they could very well be attacked even if while they have signed the NPA, so what does it matter?

If you have the might you have the right. I'm pretty sure Iran didn't sign on to that.

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ken10

 

Well, maybe, but I think the sanctions would be lifted the day Iran told the IAEA it could inspect wherever it wanted.

From my understanding, the last time the IAEA went to Iran to inspect their nuclear research sites, there were places the inspectors weren't allowed to go into, and why should Iran just let them go anywhere they want? So the west can sabotage them further? Between scientists being assassinated, to deadly explosions on site, to computer viruses, why would it be a smart move for Iran to let inspectors anywhere they want to go?

I remember we heard this EXACT SAME THING when the inspectors went into Iraq. We heard on the news how Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow them to inspect certain facilities, and how they weren't working with the inspectors the way it was expected of them. That's when Bush decided there was no other option other than to go into Iraq and bring shock and awe to it's people. We know how that turned out, and I have a feeling that's what Iran will turn into as well if we let them do to Iran what they did to Iraq. Starving them isn't exactly uplifting news, but still somewhat better than bombing them. Naturally I don't believe it will actually work.

Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction

reply to post by satron


This could backfire. It could force Iran to use the nukes they already have and i don't doubt that one of the most economically wealthy nations in the world doesn't already got nukes. Russia was selling their ICBM's like hotcakes when the iron curtain went down, who knows where those ended up?

reply to post by satron


If its good enough for Gaza then why not try it somewhere else.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

With all the crap the Iranians are coping for pure speculation/propaganda, it wouldnt surprise me if they have tried to acquire nukes if they have not already built one.