Certainly it is true that Al-Qaida is recruiting in many areas, as it was in 2001. I would even agreethat given its high profile now, as compared to then, it may well be better able to recruit. But that doesn’t mean that we can just make up facts. How do you know Al-Qaida isn’t just 2-1 from what it was in 2001, or it isn’t 4-1. The simple answer is you don’t know any of that, or even if it is more numerous or not.

Dave, do you really read anything from the news?

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

OK, so you say it is “just al Qaeda”. Yeah, like there is one Catholic Church…

I do not believe that those rockets have any system that is capable of delivering conventional weapons with the accuracy to take out Iranian nuclear sites. I have already expressed that I do not believe Israel is a willing to launch a preventive nuclear strike, and also that it would be a huge mistake if it did so. Certainly I will agree though that Israel could destroy Iran’s nuclear program with a preventive nuclear strike of its own, but I think that that would be an even worse consequence for Israel, not to mention everyone else, then letting Iran become a nuclear power.

As for your assertion that Al-Qaida has 3 times as many ‘heads’ as it did in 2001 and is growing more every day, do you have anything to back that up? In 2001 Al-Qaida had safe training camps that trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. Since 2001 the majority of Al-Qaida top leadership has been killed or captured and those that remain, such as Bin Laden, are deep enough in hiding that it seems unlikely they can exercise any sort of command and control or help with funding of any sort. Certainly their is some problem in that those people with that sort of sympathy are now operating in small individual groups which can be difficult to detect, but at the same time that sort of organization greatly limits the scale of attacks that can be maintained. We have of course not seen a terror attack in the U.S. since 9-11 and it has now been a couple of years since a major attack occurred in any western nation.

As for calling the democratically elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaders who at huge risk are attempting to develop their nations into stable democracy’s ‘puupet regimes’ that is a huge disservice to them. It implies that they are somehow less legitimate then the Taliban or Baath governments that proceed them, and also implies a rather disgusting view of these nations as less then human and only suitible for a totalitarian government. The democratically elected representives and leaders of these governments deserve our respect and admiration for courage beyond anything you or I have ever demonstrated, not scorn.

I agree with you that it would be suicide for Iran to launch a nuclear attack at anyone, and I agree that it is therefore fairly unlikely that they will do so, although if any country would embark on such a suicidal course it is one of the most likely to do so. Their rather peculiar ideology makes that an unlikely but very real possibility.

Of greater concern is what they will do with nuclear weapons as a shield to protect them from reprisals. They of course are already the number one supporter of terrorism in the world and have an ideology of exporting their Islamic revolution, backed by terror, to other Muslim nations in the region. One cannot imagine that upon gaining nuclear power they would reduce this, the opposite being far more likely. It would also of course free them up to be more oppressive against their own people, clapping down harder on the opposition and cementing thier power further. An expanded campaign of Iranian backed Shiite terror in Irar, Lebennon, Saudi Arabia and other places performed from behind the safety of a nuclear shield could quickly spiral into disaster in any number of ways.

As far as delivery systems, Iran has quite advanced rockets that can reach most of Europe and pretty much all of the middle east.

Has anyone got a lead on the delivery systems and capability Iran might have for nuclear weapons?

Google “Shavit” to find…

I don’t believe that accuracy would be of too much concern…

It is not a case of me “trusting” Iran, or Israel, or any other nation more than another. Personally, every nation with nuclear weapons poses a threat to the survival of mankind, irrespective of who they might be or think of their own self-importance.

One part of the solution could start with another phase of nuclear weapons reduction - and yeah, I am going to win the lottery tomorrow… all $6 million of it.

To continue the thought - no I do not trust the US any more than I trust Britain, or France, or China, or Russia.

In many respects it is the futility, the stupidity of the propaganda that winds me up. OBL is still on pilgramage in Central Asia somewhere. The hydra that was alQaeda now has at least three times as many heads as it had in 2001. It grows a few new ones every day too. Does the US feel any safer having destroyed Iraq? I certainly don’t. What really has been achieved other than the establishment of US puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

All that Iran needs to know is the following -

(Possession of nuclear weapons) + (Nuclear attack against anyone) = Catastrophe for Iran.

I am quite certain that message would have gotten through to both Pakistan and India very early on in their ownership of nuclear weapons. Very likely that message would have been delivered independently by US, Britain, Russia and China. Ghaddaffi and Algeria probably “got the message” as well resulting in them abandoning their weapons research…

Iran needs to know the same thing.

It is unlikely therefore that Israel will be able to militarily inflict signifigant harm on the Iranian nuclear program, and trying to and failing would almost certainly be worse then not trying at all.

I believe all humans have an equal right to form into nations and control their respective governments. Governments that are not democratic however, and Iran is one of those, do not have any inaliable right to power. To the extent that they behave themselves these totalitarian governments can be tolerated and we can wait for a slow process of change. When they embrace terrorism and seek to aquire weapons of mass destruction they cannot be tolerated.

However, since you seem convinced that Iran is more to be trusted then Israel (or the U.S. for that matter) I would question what your rational for this is? I would also question why, if the U.S. is such a pernicious threat to the ROW why New Zealand isn’t seeking to become a nuclear power? I presume that you don’t favor a nuclear powered New Zealand, but if as you insist nuclear weapons are the only way to deter the evil U.S. hegemons, how can you hold that position?

Greg,

I do not believe that Israel has the capability to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through conventional air strikes on its own. Indeed, an air campaign alone would be uncertain of success even by the U.S. military. I would imagine that a nuclear strike by Israel would accomplish that limited goal, but I am fairly certain that Israel would not take that action absent clear and imminent danger of attack. I also expect that were it to do so, it would be disasterous for it.

That option is simply not realistic.

Your reply only deteriorates from there.

Dave: you ask what others think would be the right solution in dealing with Iran. It’s my opinion, that in the end, when a Likud government takes over in Israel, we will be the ones who will have no choice but to take things into our own hands as we did in ‘89 and bomb Iran. The US has run into more than it bargained for in Iraq and the gov. is facing opposition at home and the world over for having started a war it could not finish.

Eventually, Israel will have to deal with the harsh reality of a nuclear Iran and then, folks, things will not be pretty…for the ayatollahs.