Comments on: Iran Nuke ‘Conceivable’ This Year

By: Nate O'Donnell

Nate O'Donnell — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:47:21 +0000

These people will not hesitate…as stated by Dave Richardson above, negotiating with these people is not an option and the people who thought they could talk a country like Iran out of making nuclear weapons are not thinking outside the box to any extent. cannot wait to have to deal with this in a few years.

hooyah navy

By: R. Brown

R. Brown — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:27:13 +0000

Whatever the reasons were, rightly or wrongly, for thinking that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq, similar reasons do not exist in Iran. We will not be able to quickly install a democratic government, as any government legitimately elected by the people will not be a government whose policies are acceptable to the United States. We will not be able to build a domestic security apparatus there which is capable of taking part of the burden off our troops. We will not be able to avoid a long and bloody occupation.

Even if you feel that the military option is essential, clearly it is not the case that we are in a position to do so now, and we will not be able to do so until Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer taking up large amounts of our military resources. So there is no harm in pursuing a diplomatic approach for now. Tough talk did not stop Iran from developing their nuclear program to this point, softer talk is not going to make them go any faster. We might get some success in getting other countries to limit there aid to Iran in this regard. We certainly are not going to get them to help us invade, at least not at things are now.

By: R. Brown

R. Brown — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:27:00 +0000

An airstrike is not going to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear arms capability. Even the most aggressive non-invasion option, an extensive and ongoing air campaign combined with a massive special operations action on the ground, will not stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Which is why neither Israel, nor the United States, has pursued a military option against Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear state in the last thirty years.

In all of the complaining about Obama’s crazy liberal approach to Iran (which he shares with the apparently equally crazy liberals George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Regan) we should be clear about what the military option is. The military option is a full scale conquest of Iran.

By: bobbymike

bobbymike — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:29:03 +0000

Daniel — Incredible post.….….…in a monumental ignorant way. Iran is, apparently a year or so away from developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Cordesman has been a pretty moderate clear thinking analyst.

Iran’s psychotic leader had threatened to wipe Isreal off the map, your response, the US violated SALT. WHAT????? SALT are you kidding me a 30 year old treaty with the old Soviet Union has some relevance to this debate? Or are you such a knee jerk anti-American hat you just have to bash the US no matter what.

Neither Bush nor Obama has the answer to this question “How do you stop Iran from getting a nuke (the stated policy of both administrations) and if they get one and threaten its’ neighbours, then what do you do?

By: Drake1

Drake1 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:12:36 +0000

Containment.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:08:27 +0000

Gents,
Sad comments.…the right wingers & the lefties…weak points and just plain clueless on the facts. Case in point: Daniel asserting the US is developing new nuclear delivery systems…which Service? what program? where in the budget? Daniel…you just made that up. You are worse than clueless.
W & the GOP didn’t come up with an answer and Obama’s tepid Chamberlain act will produce even less.

By: Chief Houston

Chief Houston — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:37:39 +0000

Rush told them that the Nobel Committee gave them the intelligence to make heavy water at the same time CIC Obama was waking up to the news of his award. :) Sometimes you just have to ignore idiots!

By: Chief Houston

Chief Houston — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:28:01 +0000

Thank You Daniel!
I know it gets tiring trying to get people to use their brains, but do not give up, your comments matter!
Seems like some of these people are simply political hacks!

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:54:46 +0000

I’d like to hear from some of these right-wingtards tell us all how exactly the previous eight years of CHENEY-bush (we all know who was the grown-up, senior partner there) kept Iran from getting a nuke? Or are they all so blindingly stupid to think that Iran only started ten months ago?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:35:02 +0000

everything is bush’s fault

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:36:09 +0000

Sounds like the same logic that got us into a war in Iraq… lets get some more evidence before bighting off more than we can chew with three wars.

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:33:37 +0000

Here’s something to consider.

We have more nukes than anyone in the world. We are still developing nuclear delivery technologies. We have violated both the SALT and START treaties. But somehow we have the right to just dictate to other countries that they can’t have nukes. I wondered if you considered that Pakistan and North Korea also have nukes and also have some not great intentions. What’s next? Attack North Korea? Send them ultimatums? Why not attack them now? NK’s a Hell of a lot more dangerous than Iran is? Maybe attack Pakistan? So what’s you plan? Attack Iran? Or attack Iran with Israel? Maybe more sanctions which won’t do anything but hurt the poor in Iran or work any better than sanctions already have over the decades.

And if we hit Iran, have you considered any of the consequences?

Just curious what your game plan is, Gentlemen ( and I use that word loosely)

By the way, isolationism is a far cry from militarism. And these are not our only choices. Isolationism is when W wouldn’t even engage Iran.Obama has engaged them. That’s the opposite of isolationism. The only other choice for us by the way isn’t warfare.

I find it odd hearing you condemning leftists when it was the rightists who got us in Iraq in the first place. So is Iraq a democracy yet? Have we found those WMDs? Is there less terrorism in the wrold or even in Iraq than before we invaded?

Um…no.

Or is Iraq the same corrupt tribal nation it always has been with a fully bombed infrastructure? Did we really free anyone? Let’s see…how many Iraqis died in the civil violence in the aftermath of the invasion? At least as many as were killed by Saddaam’s own hand. The lowest estimates put that at around a half a million people. And that is victory for you? 4500 US dead, tens of thousands more wounded, and the economy in a huge debt in part because of the distraction from a real war that we should have fought.

Hubris, thy name is neocon. They name is W and Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Personally I support the efforts of President Barack Obama to change the disastrous course of our foreign policy before we create more problems for us, for our allies, and for the people that we purport to be liberating. I am glad we are dealing with foreign powers more diplomatically. That said, here’s a quote from someone who must be a real lefty: “There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword.” — Wow, what peace loving hippie lefty said that? Oh it was General Ulysses S. Grant.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:05:48 +0000

I don’t think the leftists want Iran to have nukes. I think the leftists sincerely believed that they could talk nations like Iran out of it. Hubris is the word of the day. Liberals suffer from intense hubris in thinking they could persuade a driven power to give up on the path to its ultimate goal. Lets just see how long it takes them to realize their failure and act.

By: chris

chris — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:12:26 +0000

Face it, America. This is exactly what the leftist, progressive weasel Obama wants. Obama thinks the great Persian power deserves nukes. Sure, he will go along with the charade and pretend to try and stop it … but the fix has been in the whole time. This is what happens when a left-wing, anti-American traitor buys the Presidency.

By: Dave Richardson

Dave Richardson — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:32:28 +0000

I can’t wait to hear what all these people who thought we were just going to talk Iran out of getting a nuke, will say in a year or so. There’s no talking to these people and either we should have tightened the economic screws on them or have let Israel try to take them out while the program was still in its nascent form (when the Israelis were screaming at the top of their lungs a few years ago). So to all the lefties who think non-intervention and strict isolationism is the key to world peace.…now what? Want to try and hug and hold hands until they decide a nuke isnt worth it?
.… now what?

USMC Maj. Ret