Apocalypse Soon?

[headspace]

Yes, I know G W Bush is a messianic nutcase, but how do people feel about the latest developments in Iran?

Are we headed for that final Apocalypse between warring ideologies, or can the world exist peacefully?

Is another Cold War coming, or will they just start lobbing the nukes if things get bad?

Should I feel nervous when I read of Iranians chanting "God is great!" after the successful enrichment of uranian ?

Will nuclear material get into the hands of terrorists? (Is it now - what's happening in Russia these days?)

Am I just getting suckered by the western press, or is there a real danger in such proliferation?

Hopefully this stays a discussion and doesn't turn into another flame war!

Cheers.

[T2K]

WWII was far worse than anything we've seen since.  There were religious elements there too.  The Emperor was a god to the Japanese, every German soldier's belt buckle said "God with us".

The world is, has been, and will continue to be a troubled place.  

However, having said that, having nukes get into the hands of people who are not influenced by the formerly restraining notion of MAD (mutually assured destruction) does add a new twist to it.

But then again, I guess people in London, Tokyo and Berlin thought the same thing when fleets of bombers attacked them, even though "the front" was hundreds of miles away.  That must have seemed unheard of at the time, since civilians not in the combat zone were not affected in the past.

Summary: Welcome to human history, the next disaster is never far away.

[TheWrathOfGrapes]

War does not determine who is right;
War determines who is left.

[rubicond]

I think that Bush will bomb Iran, and that this might not be such a bad thing after all.

Yes, you read correctly. This comes from me      

The president of Iran is obviously a nutcase, much more so than Saddam. Furthermore, he does seem to have arms (unlike Saddam, as everybody knew), so he can defend himself. He does not need to fear the US, and doesn't seem to do it.

Add nuclear weapons to his existing arms, and we are set for a dangerous situation. This in an area where people who die while killing others go to the heavens and shag 100 virgins. What will stop him from bombing Israel once he has nuclear weapons? And of course since the US government is controlled by Jews, the US would retaliate and send a nuclear bomb on Teheran (I am sure Bush would LOVE to do that!). So, better bombing now a factory, than killing tens or hundreds of thousands later on.  

OK, so what happens after the US bombs the Iranian nuclear reactor? Nothing much. The neighbouring arabian dictators are all kept alive by the US, and they know if they try to change anything there are going to be civil wars, and their heads will be the first to roll. On the other hand, if the US drops a nuclear bomb on Teheran, nobody will be able to stop the muslim masses.

Luckily, the arabs aren't the smartest banans in the bunch (if you fogive my expression), and they will first kill each other (as they do in Iraq now) rather than organising themselves against the US (by the way, they wouldn't only attack the US, but the whole West, because they wrongly think that Europe is the same as the US, these ignorants).

Anyway, you might remember that Germany took over the whole of Europe (and caused the death of 50,000,000 people) because Germans are (or were) 1. hard working, 2. well organised, 3. committed, 4. obedient, etc. These qualities are all lacking to the arabs, so there isn't much risk of a World War III with the scale of World War II. Arabs are only able to put some explosives around their bodies and blow themselves up in a crowded market. World War III will be much much smaller, but will continue for decades rather than 6 years.

For what concerns terrorism, let me ask you a question: is it more terrorism to kill silently 500,000 children, or noisily 10 people who take a bus?

[This message has been edited by rubicond (edited 13-04-2006).]

[Potemkin Cruise]

Though I don't necessarily agree with everything in the last post, it *is* ironic that the only individual outside Israel who ever really stood up to the particular brand of apocalyptic Islamic fundamentalism currently in fashion in Iran was, well, you know, the guy on trial now ...

As if there was any doubt as to Bush's intelligence.

[Joseph27]

An interesting way to see this is to reshift your mindset to a non CNN/Fox channel and review relations with Iran. The leader of Iran (Mr Nutjob) is the leader of a quite powerful country currently holding on to a massive amount of energy resources.  He didn’t get to his position by being unaware of his political surroundings – indeed he was able to rise above his colleagues to become President.  I would guess that he has the support of more radical elements within his society and is speaking to them.  

Of course any American 'establishment' media out will show you that the guy is completely mad.  GWB is also a mad man and I would put him on the pedestal with his Iranian counterpart.  

Barely a few months back we get fed a CIA report stating that Iran is 10years away from nuclear weapons capability.  Suddenly within 2 months Iran has shifted to being one step short of a clear and present threat.  This is remarkable but more importantly – bloody scary because we are being fed this nonsense so that people like Bush can prepare for war.  No wonder the Iranians are searching for the defences because they themselves are under direct threat by a demonstrable adversary; albeit one that claims it is simple a benign hegemon.

[nikki m]

I agree with T2K and like the calm reasoned dare I say pragmatic response.  

[T2K]

Saying Saddam "stood up" to Islamic fundamentalism by invading Iran is like saying Hitler "stood up" to communist dictatorships by invading the USSR.  There's a lot more to it than that, in both cases.

Nuclear proliferation is not a desirable thing, and yet it wouldn't really bother me if Singapore, Japan, Brazil, Australia, or other rational nations obtained them.

People that are crazy enough to use them and not care about the consequences, people like moslem nutjobs who rant about wiping countries off the map - that worries me.

However, invading Iran is obviously not the answer.  The Iraq gamble is looking less and less likely to work out, getting into a nother high-stakes roll of the dice would be a bad idea.

[Ninja]

I do remember saying to a few people within earshot shortly after the invasion of Iraq happened and when the policy of pre-emption started to become an acceptable doctrine amongst the diplomats of the coalition; that if Washington didn't like anything on its radar, it would simply bomb them into submission. So, who's next?

No doubt the equally big idiot who's running Iran hasn't helped his own cause by upping the ante with his own war-mongering rhetoric, however the fact remains that the US is the only country ugly enough and stupid enough to engage literally in gun-barrel diplomacy... something the late Mao Zedong would have approved.

If Washington believes that regime change in Tehran (by military means or otherwise) would pave the way to a more stable Middle East and therefore the rest of the world, boy, we are going to see a global free-for-all that would make the suicide bombings in Baghdad, London, Madrid, Bali, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Manila, Jakarta seem minor in comparison.

Somehow, deep in the bowels of power in Washington, there is a seriously misguided and flawed thinking that forcibly removing people/governments who don't agree with its ways, will wipe the slate clean for a fresh beginning. If that were the case, what about the lessons of generational hatred that's still evident in the Balkans? Or of the ordinary Palestinians towards Israel etc?

It is perhaps poignant how Washington hasn't been as bellicose about its intentions towards North Korea or China despite the deep ideological differences on both sides. Maybe having an equally big stick does count... perhaps you've also got to demonstrate that you're prepared enough to press the button, juts like in 1945.

God help us all if this strike on Iran is actually going to happen. Does anybody out there really feel that they need another stupid war?

[Potemkin Cruise]

>>Saying Saddam "stood up" to Islamic fundamentalism by invading Iran is like saying Hitler "stood up" to communist dictatorships by invading the USSR. There's a lot more to it than that, in both cases.

Of course you are right that the situation is complex.  My point was nothing as facile as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  More like, "if you are going to get into the business of bombing madmen, do your homework first".  Here, if the stated goal was to stop terrorism in the wake of 9/11, Iraq was just a dumb choice -- for a number of reasons.

[T2K]

In that I agree.  Much more effort/force/money should have been put into Afghanistan to make that an example of the benefits of intervention.

[yellowfellow]

Well, well.... just came up. But have to say this. Blame the Jews. Blame Albert Einstein.