"Why do they hate us?" - when it ought to be, "What is wrong with them?"

[sundevil777 102]

I saw Frank Gaffney speak earlier today, about his book, War Footing.

I particularly would look forward to step 8 of his advise, waging political war:

http://warfooting.com/LookInside/PageID.8/default.asp

He is the president of the center for security policy:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 4]

Quote

"Why do they hate us?" - when it ought to be, "What is wrong with them?"

In my opinion that is absolutely the WRONG question. No doubt in my mind.

Part of the problem we have in the middle east is that we assume "they" want to be like us. While -some- do, some others don't. It doesn't mean that they're "wrong" but that they have a different opinion of how their country and culture should be.

I have no problem with that. That, by the way, IS freedom.

I think the more we try to screw around in the middle east, the worse things get. We wanted "freedom" and "democracy" in the middle east and Hammas just got elected. How 'bout them apples? In a free and fair election the "terrorists" won. WTF ya gonna do about that?

If we want to have a chance the question really ought to be, "Why do they hate us?" and we shouldn't just give lip service to trying to understand their issues.

I am firmly conviced that from "their" point of view, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with them and by trying to reframe the question to imply that there is and that it is the central problem only creates MORE problems.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[miked10270 0]

What is wrong with them(?) is that they object to the imposition of "The American Way" on them by force.

A secular state combined with capitalist free market economy with a definite division of Church & State has proven to be a very effective way to allow a country to largely run itself. There can be no denial that it has served America, Western Europe and associated countries very well for the past 60 years and it is beginning to serve Eastern Europe & Asia every bit as well.

However, not every culture may accept it. A different, more religiously focussed culture may prefer a more planned economy, and it is the attempts to impose a Western European political & economic model on another culture that causes resentment. It may be done with the most benevolent motives, but the resentment is still caused.

It was once viewed by America as sufficient merely to show how they did things, and other countries could follow and perform like America or not as they pleased. At that time, America had faith in it's system of government & economics.

Remember that America as head of The Coalition invaded Afghanistan & Iraq to enforce a change of regime. In the case of Iraq, the particular mission has been completed, Saddam Hussein has been toppled. The median Iraqi & Muslim World view is: [/]"Job Done... You Can Go Home Now!" In effect, they simply want self-determination and government of their country back. Remember that Iraq WASN'T an invasion, it was a liberation. Because they feel that they can handle things from now, they begin to question the motives of The Americans in staying.

Since I'm reading about Reagan's "Ivan & Anya, Jim & Sally" speeches, let's put it in those terms: Say you're doing yard work & trying to trim a tree with a hand saw. Your neighbour comes along with his chain saw and helps you trim the tree. That's great. Job done in half the time. "Thanks, Neighbour". But your neighbour doesn't go away, he goes into your house, tells you to put the coffee on and says he's going to fix your plumbing. Never mind that you're going to fix your own plumbing tomorrow, your neighbour is fixing it for you now. He tells you to go to the hardware store and gives you a list. Never mind that you already have a list, his list also has electrical stuff on it 'cos he's going to look at your wiring while he's here, then he'll do some work on your drains, tidy up your houses paintwork, fix your windows, and hoover while you're at the store.....! At what point do you turn around and ask him: "JUST WHOSE FUCKING HOUSE DO YOU THINK THIS IS?" And there you are. He's America... You're Iraq.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[warpedskydiver 0]

In reply to:
How 'bout them apples? In a free and fair election the "terrorists" won. WTF ya gonna do about that?

well... cut off all diplomatic ties and foreign aid of all types since it is known for a fact even the medicine that is provided is sold for cash and converted to weaponry and terrorist support training and logistics.

this is not a knee jerk reaction it is merely the standard OP of the USDOS for the last 35 years or more.

[warpedskydiver 0]

well does it really matter why they hate us?...is it the actions of every living american that causes their "ordinary people" to pick up arms in a jihad?

The thing that sticks in my mind is this:

if those who would do jihad would consider one thing.

Do they want the western world's ordinary citizens to pick up arms against them?

Do they want westerners to burn all their mosques?

Do they want us to cut off all aid?

Do they want us to hunt down and kill all their leaders, and then proceed to hunt down every last one of them like rabid dogs they are acting like?

Maybe they don't think like the rest of us. that is ok with me but answer this one question for yourselves.

Do they not believe in acting as human beings, be understanding and peaceful, as they say the koran preaches?

[miked10270 0]

Quote

In reply to:
....free and fair election the "terrorists" won. WTF ya gonna do

....it is known for a fact even the medicine that is provided is sold for cash and converted to weaponry and terrorist support training and logistics....

If you look at The FACTS(!) Hamas isn't a "Terrorist-Organisation" in Palestine. They're actually a "Humanitarian-Organisation" which builds & staffs schools, basic hospitals, and other aid infrastructure!

I suppose it's called "Winning the Publicity War", which is really THE war to win. In effect, Hamas won the palestinian election NOT for their terror attacks, but for the apparent good they've done in the place where the election was held.

Winning by force... "Kickin' Ass" (which is what America is doing now) isn't really winning. It's a short term victory which only fuels resentment. What America REALLY has to find is a way of "Winning while appearing to lose". In effect to achieve what America wants (peaceful coexistence & free trade?) without causing resentment in the Muslim World. Strangely, I believe that Iran becoming a nuclear power would actually help that in so far as possession of atomic weapons would give the Iranians a far greater sense of security.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[warpedskydiver 0]

you want Iran to have nukes?

I know a great deal about nuclear weaponry and believe me I think there are nations who have these now that shouldn't.

If you want them to have nukes do YOU live within striking range?

Now remember this: the fact they would support terrorist action against ordinary westerners is undisputed.

What do you think they will do with a nuke?....hmmm? and when they say they needed nuclear power for electricity....wow really?

I guess they must be out of OIL and have nowhere to put Hyrdoelectric power plants and or solar and wind power?

[PhreeZone 20]

For sheer economics Nuclear is still one of the most cost effective methods of generating electricity. Hydro requires having the right river structure to support daming it and enough water flow to generate power. Solar while it is nice on small scale projects it still will not generate enough electricity to fuel 100000 homes.

Oil is a finite resource. Would you rather sell it at the current prices or if you could hold it for another 20-25 years and then sell it at the inflated prices of that time?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Darius11 12]

I think you for getting one huge point.


Do ANY of the people who we hate have any bases or troops off shore or even near the US? NO


How many troops and bases do we have there and had there even before the war? Many

It is hard to believe that the US is trying to help the Middle Eastern countries we are trying to help our selves and secure our interest.
We are not hated because we are free we are hated because we prevent others from having the same freedom.
Read some history before the US it was the UK before them it was the USSR. The Middle East has been getting bullied for along time and they’re sick of it.


You don’t have to look far back to see why they hate us.


We invade there country our troops don’t have a fucking clue about the Muslim culture. We also think any one different from us is stupid.

Things that are considered rude in most Islamic country and by rude I mean you will piss people off for doing these things

1. Walking inside a house with shoes on.
2. Burping might be funny in the US considered very rude
3. Farthing don’t be surprised if you get kicked out of someone’s house for farthing
4. Touching their woman in ANY way. A simple pat on the shoulder is considered rude.
5. Foul Language, you might say shit daily here but it is very frowned upon

I can go on and on.
We need to stop thinking they want to be like us. As I have mentioned before I know many Muslims woman who look at western woman and feel sorry for them as to them western woman are viewed as products that get no respect and are only valued for sex.

We just need to stop thinking we know best. It is simple do on to others, as you want done to you.
Right now they have every reason to be pissed at the us we invaded a country for NO REASON, THE WRONG REASON, OR A MISTAKE witch ever one it is the excuse is not good enough. The world sees this specially when we have a less then tactful president who keeps on talking about how god wanted him to free the people. I mean take a step back and look at the things we have done. The list is endless.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[nacmacfeegle 0]

I think nobody is denying a country the 'right' to develop peaceful and autonomous nuclear power.
The problem is...nobody trusts Iran in this instance.
Furthermore, there just isn't a diplomatic way of saying it to the Iranians..

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I think nobody is denying a country the 'right' to develop peaceful and autonomous nuclear power.
The problem is...nobody trusts Iran in this instance.
Furthermore, there just isn't a diplomatic way of saying it to the Iranians..

A large fraction of the world's countries don't trust one or more of: the USA, Russia, UK, France or China.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why do they hate us?" - when it ought to be, "What is wrong with them?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


In my opinion that is absolutely the WRONG question. No doubt in my mind.

Part of the problem we have in the middle east is that we assume "they" want to be like us. While -some- do, some others don't. It doesn't mean that they're "wrong" but that they have a different opinion of how their country and culture should be.

Islamofacists want us to be like them. That is the problem. No amount of negotiating or apologizing for past injustices will change that. They are determined and the non muslim world must come to realize that.

To ask ourselves the question, why do they hate us, implies that the goals and deeds of the islamofacists can be changed through peaceful means. I think not.

So, what is 'wrong with them'?

Of course the vast majority of muslims are not facists, but too many are willing to look the other way instead of assist in stopping the islamofacist culture. The vast majority of ordinary 'guy in the street' muslims, and arab governments (such as the Saudis) must be willing to turn in the bad guys, for now that is not true. The Saudi govt, and Syria, etc. still supports it. That is what is wrong with them.

Their desire to make others live under Shari'a law is wrong with them. It is holding back their own progress. The madrassas, the schools that teach only their religion, and ingrain hatred to all others, is what is wrong with them.

This really is a war, the Islamofacists are fighting it for real. Time to choose sides.

http://warfooting.com/LookInside/PageID.8/default.asp

Quote

On the subject of the elections in the PA: Yes, those are
I think the more we try to screw around in the middle east, the worse things get. We wanted "freedom" and "democracy" in the middle east and Hammas just got elected. How 'bout them apples? In a free and fair election the "terrorists" won. WTF ya gonna do about that?

They have chosen to clearly define themselves for all to see. Many think that the clarity provided by that choice is a good thing, it is at least harder to deny their true intentions. Arafat's intentions were not really different, but he was disguised. Now the disguise is not so convincing.

For things to change between the PA and Israel, it will take a positive change in leadership of the PA. If someone with the courage of Egypt's Sadat were to come to power in the PA, there would be a chance.

Unfortunately, diplomacy in the style of Neville Chamberlain will not work with Islamofacists. Diplomacy in the style of Winston Churchill is needed, calling them what they truly are, islamofacists.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I think you for getting one huge point.


Do ANY of the people who we hate have any bases or troops off shore or even near the US? NO.

You can't slip this by unchallenged.

We don't HATE them. Were it not for them hating US and blowing up innocent people in order to extort what they want out of the rest of the world, we would not "hate" them. We hate what they DO; how they CONDUCT themselves and the means they use to seek their ends.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I think nobody is denying a country the 'right' to develop peaceful and autonomous nuclear power....

I'm afraid I wasn't talking peaceful nuclear power, I'm actually in favour of Iran having atomic bombs!

My reasoning is threefold:

1. Iran's history. Iran was formed out of Persia, plus & minus bits, as drawn at the end of WWI by the victors of that conflict and as part of the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire. It was then governed as a British Protectorate. After WWII, (I think around 1949 & once the Russians were ejected from the country's north, it was granted independence with a pro western government installed by Britain & America. Elections were held in 1952 and the socialists (read Potential-Pinko-Commie-Bastards) gained power! This was unacceptable to The USA, perhaps a monarchy would be better, so by 1953 The CIA assisted (installed) Shah Pawlavi as ruler! OK. He was repressive & autocratic, but he was Pro-America and that's what counted! Feel free to continue the history of American / Western interference in Iran at your leisure!

In total, Iranians feel that America & The West just couldn't ever resist interfering in their country and there's nothing to suggest that has changed. Right now, Iran, with Afghanistan to it's west, Iraq to It's East etc... Iran feels isolated & surrounded by America. There's a seige mentality developing. They fully expect America to invade & enforce "regime-Change on them just as they've done to Afghanistan & Iraq in the last few years. The Iranians might be being paranoid, but their concern is whether they're being paranoid enough.

2. Effective defence. Iran, along with the rest of the world knows that AMerica / The West are "The Varsity" when it comes to conventional warfare. What America invades, America conquers. American troops are not only the best equipped in the world, they're also very experienced having fought (& won) so many wars & carried out so many successful invasions since the end of The Cold War. As far as a conventional war goes, Iran KNOWS it'd lose.

But... For "Nuclear-Powers", the rules change. no country, once it has obtained nuclear weapons has ever been invaded or had it's interests significantly damaged. The mere possession of nuclear weapons renders invasion of a possessing country unacceptably costly in terms of casualties & worthless in terms of gains. In effect, you can't push a Nuclear Power to the point where it has nothing to lose - if you do, then both sides lose unacceptably.

In effect, Iran is in a very similar position to NATO during the cold war, facing a perceived superior conventional Soviet force & the only effective defence against invasion is to make the invasion completely unprofitable. Iran feels it NEEDS a "Flexible-Response" & MAD to insure it against conventional invasion. Iran actually wants "Detente". It wants to ensure that the major power with a long & frequent history of interfering directly with it & its neighbours affairs to be prevented from carrying out direct action against it again.


Of course, it's a matter of opinion as to whether these points are reasonable, but consider:

3. Nuclear weapons are peacekeepers. Every weapon ever developed, from the "Pointy Rock" to the "Aircraft Carrier" equipped with "Jet Bombers" & "Guided Missiles" has always been passed to the military as soon as its developed for inclusion in tactical doctrine. All weapons are usable to win a war .... EXCEPT ONE! Nuclear weapons, by their very destructive nature are regarded as weapons of statecraft, not tactics (apart from the very first & only deployments) and, while promoting a possessing countys security, nuclear weapons simultaneously prevent that country engaging in "Total-War" with another. "Total-War" guarantees Total-Loss through MAD! Every leader of a country which has acquired nuclear weapons has faced this dilemma. Even Stalin (who happily murdered 20 million of his own people) and Mao Zedong (who almost certainly did even more than Stalin) quailed at any suggestion of actual use of their nuclear arsenal!

A prime example of this was India & Pakistan. Prior to these countries gaining nuclear weapons, they fought several evenly matched unrestricted wars over various disputed territories and also on religious grounds. Since becoming Nuclear Powers, they no longer fight. Possession of these weapons have forced them to confine their differences to peaceful negotiations because they can no longer wage unrestricted war on one another and are afraid of any war they were to wage escalating beyond their political control. This is a real historical situation. The third European war and the American-Soviet-European wars that were prevented during the 1950's & 60's by possession of Nuclear weapons can only be imagined.

Admittedly, Korea & Vietnam were bloody conflicts, but they were strictly limited by the "Superpowers" involved, none of whom, it's now known, wanted to become involved in either conflict, but felt forced to support the client governments involved reluctantly and only sufficiently to prevent their client governments' collapse.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. my considered case for Iran gaining nuclear weapons.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Islamofacists want us to be like them. That is the problem. No amount of negotiating or apologizing for past injustices will change that. They are determined and the non muslim world must come to realize that.

So the things we have done has done nothing for them to hate us. Bombing Aspirin factory by mistake, Invading countries, supporting one of the most inhuman government on the planet who is known to torture, influencing governments in the Middle East and throwing our weight around not for the good of the people but only for the good of our people, and on and on and on.


The more I read your post the more I see how you could support the Israeli government.
You punch someone and when you get punched back you sue and say I didn’t hit him.

So I’ll say it again we have been nothing but perfect angels and the evil Muslims just hate us.

WOW good to see you have an open mind.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

You can't slip this by unchallenged.

We don't HATE them. Were it not for them hating US and blowing up innocent people in order to extort what they want out of the rest of the world, we would not "hate" them. We hate what they DO; how they CONDUCT themselves and the means they use to seek their ends.

And they hate us because we scarifies there lives, and prosperity so we can have a more toys.
If you can not understand there distrust of the US now when it is so obvious how can I mention the doings of the past. We invaded a country because we felt like it we used the Excuse of WMD no matter what the Inspectors said. If I were Iran I would be trying to get nuks and whatever else I could get my hand on.

When the world leader uses bully tactics the only way to deal with it is by pushing back.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[sundevil777 102]

The world's history is full of injustices and conquests resulting in cultures that have been wronged, changed maps and boundaries. What exactly do the islamofacists want as compensation? Should we be willing to give it to them? I say no.

The arab world chose to not take part in the process that created the modern Israeli state. The arab world vowed to destroy Israel as soon as it was created. They have tried time and again, but failed. They lost the wars, but want it all back without a change of heart, without a change of their original goal. To hell with that.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I'm actually in favour of Iran having atomic bombs!

If the only way for Iran to deliver a nuclear weapon was with a big missle, it would still be horrible, but at least the world could know what had happened and who had done it afterward.

If they deliver a weapon in a way that cannot be traced, then that is a very different thing.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm actually in favour of Iran having atomic bombs!

If the only way for Iran to deliver a nuclear weapon was with a big missle, it would still be horrible, but at least the world could know what had happened and who had done it afterward.

If they deliver a weapon in a way that cannot be traced, then that is a very different thing.

Are you assuming that having obtained nuclear weapons, then Iran would actually use them pre-emptively? Why?

No leader aware of the destructive power of atomic weapons would use them offensively & pre-emptively! This was why Truman removed atomic weapons from military control once he became fully aware of their power.

To quote Stalin on atomic weapons: "... the Russian people would not understand us. Moreover, they would chase us away." or, better yet (again Stalin on war): "If war broke out, the use of A-Bombs woulddepend on Trumans (unfair; Truman authorised first use and later exonerated himself) and Hitlers being in power. The people won't allow such people to be in power. Atomic weapons can hardly be used without spelling the end of the world"

Yeah... THAT Stalin. Even the psychotic "Uncle-Joe" quailed at the use of atomic weapons! There's nothing to suggest that Iran will be any different. Indeed, having atomic weapons would be more likely to force them to raise their diplomatic game - They could hardly call for the obliteration of the state of Israel convincingly when they possessed the means to do it... BUT... Can't use those (atomic) means since Israel is also a nuclear power and MAD would come into effect.

A national leader who recommends what amounts to a "Mass-Suicide-Pact" with his people doesn't stay in power. Even Stalin, with his degree of control over the Soviet Union realised this!

As far as delivery systems goes - then I'd expect Iran to have a limited range delivery system, on a par with India, Pakistan, Taiwan. A system capable of destroying an invader.

Interestingly, each atomic weapon carries the signature of the reactor that produced the material... In effect, an "Atomic-Fingerprint". This renders the "Fedex-Bomb" impractical since it's accepted that such a bomb would be traced to it's country (reactor) of origin and the state would be a pariah. The world would watch and approve as revenge was meted out! Mutual Assured Destruction. Guaranteed total loss.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Are you assuming that having obtained nuclear weapons, then Iran would actually use them pre-emptively? Why?

No leader aware of the destructive power of atomic weapons would use them offensively & pre-emptively!

I think that they would use them as an extortion-bludgeon. They would probably be constantly threatening to blow up X or Y if we did not accede to their demands.

Radical muslims get on t.v. and demand that we release prisoners or they will cut off the heads of a few unlucky people. Why would you think they would not continue to make demands of other nations, but this time greater magnitude demands, with the threat of vaporizing 100,000 people?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[sundevil777 102]

I suppose that a 'fingerprint' of the source material is better than nothing, but the material itself may be obtained from another source. Would we actually have the 'fingerprint' of an Iraian reactor? If a fedex bomb is delivered, what if the material is from a russian reactor in a bomb delivered by others? The Russians could rightly claim that they are only guilty of not being careful with all their material, so much confusion after the fall of the USSR...

A lot of what ifs, that is easy to do. I'm just not at all convinced that further proliferation is more of the same mutually assured destruction.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I think that they would use them (Atomic Weapons) as an extortion-bludgeon. They would probably be constantly threatening to blow up X or Y if we did not accede to their demands.

Radical muslims get on t.v. and demand that we release prisoners or they will cut off the heads of a few unlucky people. Why would you think they would not continue to make demands of other nations, but this time greater magnitude demands, with the threat of vaporizing 100,000 people?

-

Doesn't work! Such a threat doesn't hold water - it fails The Clausewitz Test on war. Their own people wouldn't wear it. it goes completely against the Iranian people's survival instincts in that the ordinary citizen of an atomic power knows only too well the consequences of attempts at nuclear blackmail (and it doesn't fit at all well with their plans for tomorrow)!

For example: Did America or The Soviet Union ever say; GET OUT OF KOREA OR WE GO NUCLEAR!? Did America or The Soviet Union or China make similar threats over Vietnam? Did India or Pakistan ever settle the Kashmir or the religious wars by overt nuclear threats? Have China or Taiwan ever threatened to nuke one another?

There is only one credible threat that can be made with atomic weapons, and that threat is implicit in their possession: "DON'T PUSH US TOO FAR. IF WE LOSE TOO MUCH THEN BOTH OF US WILL LOSE EVERYTHING!"

As I said before, possession of nuclear weapons precludes a "Total-War". what national leaders then fear is any war in case it escalates out of control (and thus strive to minimise any conflict)! In effect, atomic weapons ensure that their possessor cannot lose catastrophically since they "guarantee" that any winner against them would also suffer catastrophic loss.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I suppose that a 'fingerprint' of the source material is better than nothing .... what if the material is from a russian reactor in a bomb delivered by others...

The Iranians are attempting to enrich their own material in their own reactors. They're not shopping for atomic weapons, they're trying to build them so it's going to be their fingerprint.

Quote

.... I'm just not at all convinced that further proliferation is more of the same mutually assured destruction.

Try looking at it from the Iranian point of view of THEIR national security in the present situation. If they FEEL more secure, then tensions should ease in that region. I also think that a more moderate government would result in Iran - look at how the Pakistani Government has changed since their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Doesn't work! Such a threat doesn't hold water - it fails The Clausewitz Test on war. Their own people wouldn't wear it. it goes completely against the Iranian people's survival instincts in that the ordinary citizen of an atomic power knows only too well the consequences of attempts at nuclear blackmail (and it doesn't fit at all well with their plans for tomorrow)!

For example: Did America or The Soviet Union ever say; GET OUT OF KOREA OR WE GO NUCLEAR!?

The big fallacy of your thinking here is it takes only a handful of Iranians (islamic militants) to pull off a terrorist plan, and so you would not need the entire population of Iran to want to set off a nuke in order for it to actually be done.

We are not dealing with people who are rational in at all the same way we think of ourselves as being. They believe that murdering all infidels will get them the favor of their god! What is there to lose? So they, and whatever other muslims are in the blast area, will go to paradise and the infidels will burn in hell or whatever. Is this realization supposed to prevent them from blowing up a nuke?

Conventional deterrent psychology does NOT work on people who would be just as happy dying for their cause as continuing to live -- indeed, on people who think THE GREATEST [I]HONOR[/I] is dying for your cause (your god).

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

As far as delivery systems goes - then I'd expect Iran to have a limited range delivery system, on a par with India, Pakistan, Taiwan. A system capable of destroying an invader.

So let them have nukes, but control how far they can shoot them?

. . =(_8^(1)