Comments on: Tad Daley: What Would You Do if You Were Iran?

By: bnwizevunoci

bnwizevunoci — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:04:31 +0000

titsynuturepi…

exrocetatyne…

By: panamahead

panamahead — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:50:56 +0000

Seems pretty clear to me that if we (the most powerful nation) use military force too often other nations will conclude by our example that its fair play.

If Washington doesn’t lead by example, how can we possibly expect weaker nations to behave rationally?

What would you do if you were Iran? Exactly what its doing now.

Were in a hole, lets STOP digging.

By: Poet

Poet — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:40:21 +0000

Scott Ritter has said that Iran would be crazy not to look at developing nuclear weapons given the behavior of the U.S. and Israel in the Persian Gulf area for the past 15 years. He said that even Israeli intel analysts had come to that conclusion for exactly the same reasons. In other words our policies are encouraging rather than discouraging nuclear development in Iran.

By: jjohnjj

jjohnjj — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 22:21:53 +0000

Why is Iran’s potential nuke called a “weapon” while India’s real nukes are refered to as a “deterrent”?

Tehran doesn’t want nukes to destroy Tel-Aviv or Washington. They want nukes to sink American aircraft carriers.

A nuclear strike on Israel (a nation armed with 300 warheads and multiple delivery systems) would be suicidal. A strike on an American city – even one delivered covertly by terrorists – would bring reprisal against any state even suspected of providing the weapon.

The Mullahs aren’t that crazy.

They don’t even want to sink our carriers. They just want to force them away from their shores, beyond the range of intermediate-size missles.

A strike on a carrier group as sea would kill thousands of U.S. sailors, but virtually no civilians. A few dhows might be swamped by the blast and waves. Even fallout would be limited.

The U.S. would be hard pressed to find a target to retaliate against that would not produce significant “collateral damage”(and worldwide condemnation).

Intermediate range missiles vs. aircraft carriers is a contest that favors the defender, both militarily and politically.

So, why do we need carriers in the Persian Gulf to begin with?

Washington does not want America to ask that question. That’s why the mainstream meda feeds us a steady diet of drivel about “madmen” who want to “wipe Israel off the map”.