# Iran must be stopped



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006
Today Tehran, Tomorrow the World
What's at stake in the dispute over Iranian nukes? Ultimately, human survival
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Like many physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project, Richard Feynman could not get the Bomb out of his mind after the war. "I would see people building a bridge," he wrote. "And I thought, they're crazy, they just don't understand, they don't understand. Why are they making new things? It's so useless."

Feynman was convinced man had finally invented something that he could not control and that would ultimately destroy him. For six decades we have suppressed that thought and built enough history to believe Feynman's pessimism was unwarranted. After all, soon afterward, the most aggressive world power, Stalin's Soviet Union, acquired the Bomb, yet never used it. Seven more countries have acquired it since and never used it either. Even North Korea, which huffs and puffs and threatens every once in a while, dares not use it. Even Kim Jong Il is not suicidal.

But that's the point. We're now at the dawn of an era in which an extreme and fanatical religious ideology, undeterred by the usual calculations of prudence and self-preservation, is wielding state power and will soon be wielding nuclear power.

We have difficulty understanding the mentality of Iran's newest rulers. Then again, we don't understand the mentality of the men who flew into the World Trade Center or the mobs in Damascus and Tehran who chant "Death to America"--and Denmark(!)--and embrace the glory and romance of martyrdom.

This atavistic love of blood and death and, indeed, self-immolation in the name of God may not be new--medieval Europe had an abundance of millennial Christian sects--but until now it has never had the means to carry out its apocalyptic ends.

That is why Iran's arriving at the threshold of nuclear weaponry is such a signal historical moment. It is not just that its President says crazy things about the Holocaust. It is that *he is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away.* :eyeroll:

He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for "those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink ... as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive" his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution's raison d'Ãªtre is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. How better to light the fuse for eternal bliss than with a nuclear flame?

Depending on your own beliefs, Ahmadinejad is either mystical or deranged. In either case, he is exceedingly dangerous. And Iran is just the first. With infinitely accelerated exchanges of information helping develop whole new generations of scientists, extremist countries led by similarly extreme men will be in a position to acquire nuclear weaponry. If nothing is done, we face not proliferation but hyperproliferation. *Not just one but many radical states will get weapons of mass extinction, and then so will the fanatical and suicidal terrorists who are their brothers and clients.*
That will present the world with two futures. The first is Feynman's vision of human destruction on a scale never seen. The second, perhaps after one or two cities are lost with millions killed in a single day, is a radical abolition of liberal democracy as the species tries to maintain itself by reverting to strict authoritarianism--a self-imposed expulsion from the Eden of post-Enlightenment freedom.

Can there be a third future? That will depend on whether we succeed in holding proliferation at bay. *Iran is the test case. It is the most dangerous political entity on the planet, and yet the world response has been catastrophically slow and reluctant.* Years of knowingly useless negotiations, followed by hesitant international resolutions, have brought us to only the most tentative of steps--referral to a Security Council that lacks unity and resolve. *Iran knows this and therefore defiantly and openly resumes its headlong march to nuclear status. If we fail to prevent an Iranian regime run by apocalyptic fanatics from going nuclear, we will have reached a point of no return.* It is not just that Iran might be the source of a great conflagration but that we will have demonstrated to the world that for those similarly inclined there is no serious impediment.

Our planet is 4,500,000,000 years old, and we've had nukes for exactly 61. No one knows the precise prospects for human extinction, but Feynman was a mathematical genius who knew how to calculate odds. If he were to watch us today about to let loose the agents of extinction, he'd call a halt to all bridge building.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

It's a scarey thought indeed. Iran is not going to stop and give up thier nuclear ambitions because the UN is asking/demanding it. It will be interesting to see what the UN is going to do. A radio host here said Bush's poll numbers are going to raise because of war with Iran. Whether or not the US does it directly or indirectly through Israel is yet to be seen, but I would definitely agree.

Ohh, and are there only 9 countries with nukes? US, Russia, France, UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, China (thanks Clinton), and North Korea (if you believe them)

Jeff Given


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Thanks for posting this article Bob. I've stated on these boards over and over again that Iran and it's Islamic fanaticism is the #1 threat to the US and the rest of the world.

Reading this article got my heart beating very fast, and I even had a moment of panic when I read*



President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away

Click to expand...

*If THAT is NOT a wakeup call to the world to unite.... we are a doomed planet.

We need leaders from across the board of different spectrums (religous, state leaders other than Bush, News Anchors both US and Intl, and members of Our Congress from both sides of the Aisle) to unite and speak up as a united voice.

Ryan


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Why don't we let them get weapons of mass destruction, then we can invade them and we will have taken over the entire area and control Afganistan, Iran and Iraq! That should solve the problem. Seems a bit simplistic in it's approach but....


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

......maybe it's worth a try. Let's ask the President and see what he thinks about this strategy!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

We could then gain support of all our allies around the world and they would get behind us and we can solve this thing before the next president is no longer in office. Geez, there is nothing to this foreign policy. It's really much simpler than most people would have you believe.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Our forces could invade from the west from Iraq and from the east from Afganistan and the UAB could protect the south flank and the soviets would protect the north flank.....wow! I hope that pressure from the UN works in Iran like it did in Iraq to bring that Saddam guy to his knees.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

DJRooster- I know you are trying to be funny But your joke is the ansewer. All except the part about letting them get weapons off mass destruction and seeking the support of our allies.

Get ready for WWIII and we better get mean or we are going to get dead!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

This will blow over.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Blow over or BLOW UP


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh I knew someone would say that. Left myself open, fair enough.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It will not "blow over" and when you combine this with Bush and the Congress being unwilling to close the borders and tighten up the ports it is a huge concern.

One dirty bomb in even a little city in the US will destroy our economy and strike terror in our citizens.

And we won't have a clear idea of who to go after like we do now with the Iranians, its will really be a can of worms at that point.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

You know... I never ever send out "spam" emails to my friends... I HATE chain letters as much as the next guy..

But I would tell every single one of you to copy the original post and forward it to every contact you have. We need to get the message out about this VERY real THREAT to our WORLD security.

This is not a US thing... this will change the history of the future world.

We may not even have an a future generation to look forward to..

I sent this letter to over 300 contacts an hour ago... You should too..

It is that important.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There are some very scary aspects that play into this.
1 The UN has shown crazy people that they will do nothing. That they are all hot air and not to be trusted, and that they are against the U. S.
2 The world knows that the first bomb will go off in the U. S. so until it does they are safe.
3 The rest of the world knows they can sit on their cheap coward rear end and wait for us to solve all their problems.
4 When we do solve their problems they will ***** about how bad we are.
5 If we get enough people like MT we will take a number of hits before we respond so the rest of the world should sweat right along with us.
6 Perhaps our hopes is a democrat president with some nerve. The republicans are not as partisan, so they would support a hawk democrat.

Still I can't stand to vote for a socialist liberal. Maybe a miracle will happen and the liberals will put national security ahead of abortion and gay marriage for a little while. When things calm down they can go back to fetus choking.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Get ready for WWIII


Don't look now but it has been going on for some time now.......


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Don't look now but it has been going on for some time now.......


No, no it hasn't.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I think since about 1979.

If you were not alive, you couldn't perceive the beginning. That, and many are not perceptive enough to notice a nuke cloud on the horizon. If the thermal blast doesn't knock them down, it didn't happen.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> This will blow over.


Are you serious? A man that believes the end of the world is near has gained power over a country and is actively working on a nuclear bomb, and you think this will blow over?

Holy Crap!!!!

I've got more chance of going gay and leaving my family than this blowing over.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I didn't say don't take action, I said it will blow over. I'm confident it will.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I didn't say don't take action, I said it will blow over. I'm confident it will.


When something blows over, it does so without any intervention. like when you sit in your house and wait for a storm to "blow over"

Taking action completley negates any "blowing over" from happening. At that point the situation didnt "blow over", it was "dealt with".

We WILL deal with this problem.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I support action, not military action (considering we don't have such an option), but action to ensure that things end well. It is however my opinion that with or without intervention things will solve themselves within Iran.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Plainsman, my guess is the first bomb goes off in Israel, not the US. After that (or maybe the same time?) the US will be attacked. It is not a question of if....it is a question of when.

MT, remember WWII could have been prevented or changed drastically had Europe not thought, "it will blow over" when Hitler began invading countries.

Jeff Given


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT, remember WWII could have been prevented or changed drastically had Europe not thought, "it will blow over" when Hitler began invading countries.


World War Two would have also been prevented had the Allies not sought such ridiculous reparations from the already broken country. Then again, hindsight is 20/20. Good thing we aren't dealing with Hitler.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I support action, not military action (considering we don't have such an option), but action to ensure that things end well. It is however my opinion that with or without intervention things will solve themselves within Iran.


MT you are so misinformed it is truly laughable. What are 3 things we could do non militarily to ensure things end well? Ohh... and just so you know...for them to end well

1. No other country has to have been harmed by Iran
2. The timeline has to be fast enough to ensure they aren't weapons grade nuclear capable.
3. What will happen (specifically) within Iran to achieve this?

Ohh... and by the way MT. The United States could blow thru Iran in about 4 days with 72 hours notice. You have no realistic clue about the military capability that is within 2500 miles of Iran.

Just for kicks MT... what do you believe we have from a military readiness standpoint off the coast of both Israel in the Med, our bases in Qatar, our bases in Afghanistan, our bases in Saudi Arabia, and Military Operations group off the coast of the Indian Ocean in international waters?

MT our stealth bombers could level Iran to dust. For you to imply that we wouldn't have the ability... is hysterical. We do have that ability. If you are going to imply that our forces are stretched too thin.... and you believe they Iranians believe that... well.. both you and they would be in for a rude awakening. Our boys are worn down, but if their commanders were to explain what the threat assessment was, they'd be up for kicking some Iranian ***. Additionally, they are already battle trained and that much more combat ready than they were 4 years ago.

:eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Ohh... and by the way MT. The United States could blow thru Iran in about 4 days with 72 hours notice. You have no realistic clue about the military capability that is within 2500 miles of Iran.


Sounds a lot like the predictions in Iraq too. Will we be greeted as liberators in Iran too?



> Our boys are worn down, but if their commanders were to explain what the threat assessment was, they'd be up for kicking some Iranian a$$


Thanks for giving the soldiers their opinion, I'm sure they appreciate it.


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

MT - Not all the world's problems can be solved by sitting around the campfire and drinking hot chocolate with the little marshmallows.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Nor can they be solved by the sword, they can only be delayed.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Nice one liners MT... unfortunately you managed to deftly side step my questions... you made the statement:



Militant_Tiger said:


> I support action, not military action (considering we don't have such an option), but action to ensure that things end well. It is however my opinion that with or without intervention things will solve themselves within Iran.


I replied:



> MT you are so misinformed it is truly laughable. What are 3 things we could do non militarily to ensure things end well? Ohh... and just so you know...for them to end well
> 
> 1. No other country has to have been harmed by Iran
> 2. The timeline has to be fast enough to ensure they aren't weapons grade nuclear capable.
> 3. What will happen (specifically) within Iran to achieve this?


Please followup with answers. You expect us to when you pose a question....

Ryan

.


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

> World War Two would have also been prevented had the Allies not sought such ridiculous reparations from the already broken country.


Uhm.....Maybe I am mistaken and if I am I apologize to the vet's who fought in the war, but didn't WWII start because basically because Germany invaded country after country and the little thing called the Holocaust?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Considering that I cannot predict the future accurately, I decided to leave them unanswered.


----------

