A bird’s-eye view of the Iranian nuclear problem
The satellite photo above left was taken in February, 2000. The photo above right, of the same site about 20 miles north northeast of the Iranian city of Qom, was taken four days ago, Sept. 26, 2009. It is believed to be the site of the newly revealed Iranian nuclear facility. The satellite photo to the right offers a more detailed look at the above-ground portion of the facility, most of which is underground and difficult to reach by aerial attack.
So what do we do?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said repeatedly that a military effort to take out Iran’s nuclear complex would set back their effort by one to three years, and that is consistent with every other estimate I’ve seen. I’ve seen no authoritative estimate that it would stop the effort. In fact, I think that over the long term it would harden Iran’s resolve to get the bomb and guarantee its eventual success. The Iranians would sensibly reason that with the bomb in their possession, no one would treat their territory with such disrespect again.
Other concerns also weigh against the military option. We’re stretched thin fighting two wars already, and taking on a third would be foolish. As we draw down our forces in neighboring Iraq, they become more vulnerable to attacks as well. And given the state of the global economy, disruption of oil shipments from the Persian Gulf might push us over the precipice.
That said, I also don’t hold out much hope of negotiating successfully with the current Iranian government. I do think it’s worth the effort, if for no other reason than to demonstrate their intransigence to the world. But success is unlikely.
So where does that leave us? Long term, the best hope for stopping Iran short of a nuclear weapon would be a change of government in Tehran. However, the US government can’t achieve that change or even lobby for it too aggressively; the Iranian people have to do it themselves.
That’s another problem with the military option. An attack on Iran, whether launched by Israel or the United States, would instantly rally the Iranian people around their current government and dash any hope of change.
The only good news is that in the wake of the stolen elections, Iran’s government remains in serious trouble with its people. Top Shia clerics are divided about support for the current regime, and dissent and opposition continue to bubble up from the street and mosque. It’s hard to tell what effect that opposition may have, but the fact that it continues with support from high-ranking clerics is encouraging.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
262 comments Add your comment
Bruno
September 30th, 2009
2:07 pm
First!
Stan
September 30th, 2009
2:08 pm
So, now the war is about oil, and it’s ok.
Bosch
September 30th, 2009
2:11 pm
“So what do we do?”
Simple. Nothing.
Jackie
September 30th, 2009
2:16 pm
If Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, the question that one should ask is; what will they do with it?
Having 1 or 10 nuclear weapons make them a threat to whom?
They are not insane enough to believe that they can attack ANYONE with any of those weapons without knowing they will draw an immediate, rapid and overwhelming response from many countries.
The President of the country of verbose, no more. Let him keep talking while the young people of the country continue to boil. Soon it will reach a point where he will be out of office and those young folks will be the driving force for a new political direction in the country.
Let them continue to spend money on a weapon that can NEVER be used.
Bruno
September 30th, 2009
2:17 pm
“That’s another problem with the military option. An attack on Iran, whether launched by Israel or the United States, would instantly rally the Iranian people around their current government and dash any hope of change.”
A nuclear-armed Iran is either acceptable or it is NOT acceptable. No one wants to go to war over this, but what other realistic options remain? As provocative and crazy as Ahmedinejad comes across as being, ultimately I think that he is a coward who values his own skin above anything else and would cave in the face of real military pressure.
Bosch
September 30th, 2009
2:17 pm
If we were so stupid as to bomb this nuclear facility, that would give the legitimate reason they needed to one day pay us back.
Bruno
September 30th, 2009
2:21 pm
“Simple. Nothing.”
“Having 1 or 10 nuclear weapons make them a threat to whom?”
I can’t agree with either one of you that a nuclear-armed Iran is acceptable. I’m no armchair general, but hope that someone, whether it be Israel, the US, or even the UN stands up to Ahmedinejad in the only way that he will respect and respond to. In contrast to Kim in N. Korea, I think he would cave before risking his own skin.
Bosch
September 30th, 2009
2:25 pm
Bruno,
I’m with Jackie – nuclear weapons are only dangerous if a terrorist gets their hands on one, because they are the only one who would use it. Now, whether or not Ahmedinejad is crazy enough to sell one to said bad guy terrorist remains to be seen. I think he is just that crazy, but then again, I’m no armchair general either.
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:26 pm
Stupid to attack Iraq? I think not, stupid not to attack Iran. Clearly the Bush Doctrine shows we need to keep islamofacist fanatics fighting in thier part of the globe, not ours. Nukes are for grownups, not little kids like Iranians.
Jackie, Iran will use any weapon they have, silly rabbit!
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:28 pm
Use the nukes produced in Korea on Iran! Now there’s a good idea, I bet the Koreans make it better and cheaper! Nuclear Free Atlanta!
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:29 pm
First! (Plus 10!)
Normal
September 30th, 2009
2:31 pm
I agree with Bosch. Do nothing. Even as a child, I heard the boogie man story about the old USSR and China when they got their bombs. We aimed our at them and they aimed their at us, we built bombers and they byilt bombers, we built submarines and they built submarines…and the one day…chirp, chirp, chirp…nothing. We were all scared of each other. Let Iran have their one or two nucs. There will be so many nucs now aimed at them,and they realize for the first time what it is like to play with the big boys. There will be so many nucs now aimed at them, they will crap in their pants. And tell them up front that if they should ever decide to use them, they will be revisited three fold. It’s still called MAD, Mutual Assured Distruction. No problem.
N.J.
September 30th, 2009
2:31 pm
As I have often said, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even if they have them are a result of them being almost as much of a minority in the region as Israelis are. First of all, they are non Arab. One strike against them. Second of all they are non Sunni, two strikes. They want a capacity in order to avoid coming uner the thumb of either a western foreign power, or even worse, become a hated minority in an Arab Sunni region.
Israel has nukes, and they represent the United States in the region and the United States has a policy of regime change in Iran. One justification for the Iranians wanting nukes if that is in fact, what they are actually doing. This “NEW” plant is a decade old at least. There is sign of activity there, but no sign of uranium or enrichment activity there.
The simplest way to ease Iran’s fears of an outside nation overthrowing the regime and putting another Shah like puppet in its place would be for the United States to tell Israel to get rid of IT’S nukes. Israel does not want that, because it does not trust the United States 100 percent to guarantee their existence. Iran has the same distrust of the United States and Israel
However the United States and Israel have a way larger record of attacking other countries in modern times than Iran does. The U.S. and Israel are making the usual argument that an aggressor nation makes when smaller nations arm themselves. The subtext is that by arming themselves it is more difficult to the more powerful nation to attack them and overthrow their government. Iran has really not attacked another nation since the 1700’s. Even then it was in response to a lot of Sunni abuse of Shi’ites. The United States and Israel cannot make that claim
And the predecessors of the current bunch of religious leaders had a very large role in policy making in Iran over the last three centuries. The mullahs were always the advisors of the Shahs and they were often given broad leeway at the local level to act as both civil and religious authority.
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:32 pm
ROCK THE CASBAH!
jconservative
September 30th, 2009
2:33 pm
Bosch – “So what do we do? Simple. Nothing.”
I kind of agree with Bosch. If the options are military, talk & sanctions, then that is 3 poor options. And I believe all three are poor options. Are they the only options?
Per international treaty (they signed & we signed) they have the right to develop peaceful nuclear facilities. The problem is they will not
allow inspections of the facilities to insure they are peaceful.
If the 10/1 talks fail, and they will, we do need to officially deliver Hillary’s message to the ruling Ayatollahs, “attack Israel & we will obliterate you”.
And Stan has a wonderful point – “So, now the war is about oil, and it’s ok.” We can have $10.00 a gallon gasoline two ways, federal tax of $7.50 a gallon or use our military to attack Iran.
Bruno
September 30th, 2009
2:34 pm
From this morning:
““we’re in a U-shaped recovery, but a recovery we are definitely in — too bad that you’re so partisan you’re cheering for the country to fail rather than for the Fed’s and Obama’s policies to succeed.”
I gotta pick at you for this statement, USinUK–Every economic recovery, by definition, produces a “U”-shaped graph, at least temporarily. Many people, including myself, think that the recovery graph will be more complex, due to having to factor in all of the unprecedented government spending.
“I wouldn’t count the chickens too early. I’ve read many an economist that are predicting a W-shaped recovery, meaning a double bottom, and with the current un-expected drop in consumer confidence, the upcoming holiday season should give us a good indicator. I’m not seeing it around me, as more and more small businesses continue to close as they have hung on as long as they could and no help in sight.”
I’ve read the prediction of a “W” shaped recovery many times, md, which indicates a double bottom with growth ultimately winning out. Personally, I agree with the double bottom prediction, but think that the ultimate effect of the current runaway spending will be to harm our economy via inflation and the resulting high interest rates. As such, I am predicting an “M” shaped recovery, with the last leg heading down, not up.
AmVet
September 30th, 2009
2:34 pm
Maybe the conned favor this approach!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDABe8AOuCQ
Or maybe we just need to bring back the “policy” of Ollie and Ronnie and sell them MORE of our weapons.
Traitorous RepubliCons…
Mrs. Godzilla
September 30th, 2009
2:35 pm
When was the last time Iran attacked another nation?
And we do all know that this facility and it’s construction
remain within the letter of the law.
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:35 pm
NO one can prove that Isreal has nukes, except Iran, by nuking Isreal. Kind of a Catch 22 wouldn’t you say?
Matilda
September 30th, 2009
2:36 pm
What gives US the right? Don’t we have nuclear weapons? What makes it okay for us but not them? Certainly I can’t stand Ahmadinejad either, and don’t presume he’s in any way fond of us, but who says WE have to police the rest of the planet when we can’t even handle our own business here? American kids are getting killed in this country just because they went to school, and somehow we’re qualified to tell other countries what to do?
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:36 pm
Laws are made to be broken, as are Iranian nuclear facilities.
Say What??
September 30th, 2009
2:37 pm
Okay, so which issue has the most immediate danger attached to it, (a) nukes in Iran, or (b) global warming. Just sayin….
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:37 pm
Might makes right Matilda.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
September 30th, 2009
2:37 pm
Well, I missed most stuff on this blog today because I was down at the courthouse on jury duty. They finally got around to calling some of us down to a courtroom around 11. When I got asked if I could be fair, I said sure I could. I didn’t want the DA to be wasting his time. I said it was plain as day the guy was guilty because he wouldn’t of been arrested in the first place if he wasn’t guilty. Anyway, they didn’t pick me and later they told me I could go ahead and go home. The rest of them will probly let the crook off.
I say we need a drop a couple A-bombs on that place with the atomic plant. If we do that they’ll have a heck of a time getting the thing back in business. I reckon Gandalf is with me on that. If we would of wanted Iran to have atomic weapons we would of give them some. Anyhow, a few countries will hoot and holler about what we done, but it will all calm down in a few months. We got them, they want them, so we’ll give them the business end of them.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good p.m. everybody.
Normal
September 30th, 2009
2:37 pm
Let me repost this where it makes sense…I type alot slower than I think…
Normal
September 30th, 2009
2:31 pm
I agree with Bosch. Do nothing. Even as a child, I heard the boogie man story about the old USSR and China when they got their bombs. We aimed our at them and they aimed their at us, we built bombers and they built bombers, we built submarines and they built submarines…and the one day…chirp, chirp, chirp…nothing. We were all scared of each other. Let Iran have their one or two nucs. There will be so many nucs now aimed at them, they will crap in their pants. Then they realize for the first time what it is like to play with the big boys. And tell them up front that if they should ever decide to use them, they will be revisited three fold. It’s still called MAD, Mutual Assured Distruction. No problem.
Gandalf, the Wise
September 30th, 2009
2:38 pm
climate change? Global cooling that has been going on for the last 11 years? I think the answer would have to be…Iran! Yes, a real threat, one we can destroy, not fictional boogie man stories about global warming…
Dusty
September 30th, 2009
2:38 pm
Well, I wonder when Jay will make up is mind. Dissent by the people in Iran is a fine thing and something we must depend upon.
But dissenters in America are named as “teabaggers, morons, racists, and political nuts”. NO, Jay, I cann’t give you exact quotations.. It is the general theme of liberals and we all know you are a liberal. The dissenters of America are just as worthy as any in Iran.
But vitriolic dissent is hatefully non-productive and too close to anarchy. That is another thought and definition to consider.
Bosch may have the best suggestion yet. Just wait.
That’s fine, as long as we do not promise Iran they can wait as long as they like (and finish plants and complete bombs).
Say What??
September 30th, 2009
2:39 pm
Mrs. Godzilla
Your rose colored glasses must not be removable. You said “When was the last time Iran attacked another nation?”. They get a bigger body count by exterminating their own citizens who disagree with the dictator.
Also, prior to 9/11/01, when was the last time muslim extremists flew boarded commercial airplanes into buildings?
N.J.
September 30th, 2009
2:40 pm
Another western lie. Shi’ite Ahmedinejad selling nukes to Sunni Terrorists who think that Shi’ites are heretics who should be wiped off the map. This is occurring in Afghanistan and Pakistan every day. The Sunni’s we have empowered there are slaughtering Shi’ites daily.
You basically have to assert that Iran would give a nuke to groups that have stated they want to attack Shi’ites:
Call for violence
Bin Laden’s call to attack Shiites represents a sea change for al Qaeda, which in the past has been reluctant to criticize Shiites. (Watch how bin Laden urges Sunnis to retaliate — 2:29)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/02/binladen.message/index.html
You can go to the Muslim Brotherhood websites and check out the radical Sunni organization policy on Shi’ites
The Shi’ites of Pakistan and Afghanistan have a long memory for the insults and brutalities inflicted against them. It now appears they’re on the hunt for their sworn enemies, and Osama bin Laden is among them.
That might be because they haven’t forgotten what he did to them in 1988. It was then that hundreds of Shi’ites of the Northern Areas (NA – Gilgit and Baltistan) of Pakistan, known before 1947 as the Northern Areas of Jammu and Kashmir, were massacred after a demand raised by them for the creation of an autonomous Shi’ite state called Karakoram, consisting of the Shi’ite majority areas of the NA, Punjab and the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). Military ruler General Zia-ul-Haq called in bin Laden, then living in Peshawar, and his Sunni tribal hordes to carry out the massacre.
Since the beginning of 2003, there have been indications that sections of the Shi’ite community have been doing their own hunt for bin Laden and his No 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. It was reported that the arrest at Rawalpindi, Pakistan in March 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who had allegedly orchestrated the September 11 terrorist strikes in the United States, was made possible by intelligence provided by some Shi’ites in Quetta, Balochistan province, where Khalid was living before fleeing to Rawalpindi.
After hearing these reports, the SSP and the LEJ, both members of bin Laden’s International Islamic Front, retaliated by massacring a large number of Hazara Shi’ites in the Quetta area in July 2003. This was followed by many anti-Shi’ite incidents in Karachi and other parts of Pakistan.
To be honest. The Shi’ites have been doing MORE to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than the Sunni’s in Pakistan have.
The arrest of Khalid Sheik Muhammad was the result of intelligence provided by local Shi’ites not by the Sunni government of Pakistan
Duh…
AmVet
September 30th, 2009
2:41 pm
Just as those who are opposed to continued affirmative action aver, it is time, in fact, WAY past time, for Israel to stand on her own two feet.
Quite giving away untold gazillions of OUR dollars to her and quit propping up the fascist-run DoD contractors who arm her to the teeth.
Watch how the situation in the Middle East would change overnight…
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
September 30th, 2009
2:43 pm
Cool, we got some “before” pictures.
Now Israel can go in their and get the “after” photos, since we are to skeered to do it.
Bruno
September 30th, 2009
2:43 pm
“Let Iran have their one or two nucs. There will be so many nucs now aimed at them,and they realize for the first time what it is like to play with the big boys.”
“I’m with Jackie – nuclear weapons are only dangerous if a terrorist gets their hands on one, because they are the only one who would use it.”
I disagree with both of you. Of course, none of us are in charge of the military, so we will have to sit back and see what our entrusted leaders decide to do.
@@
September 30th, 2009
2:44 pm
Should’ve listened to Cheney before Iran became the imminent threat it is today.
“I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues,” Dick Cheney said, regarding Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Mr. Cheney described himself as being isolated among advisers to then-President George W. Bush, who ultimately decided against direct military action.
“I was probably a bigger advocate of military action than any of my colleagues,” Mr. Cheney said in response to questions about whether the Bush administration should have launched a pre-emptive attack prior to handing over the White House to Barack Obama.
“I thought that negotiations could not possibly succeed unless the Iranians really believed we were prepared to use military force,” Mr. Cheney said. “And to date, of course, they are still proceeding with their nuclear program and the matter has not yet been resolved.”
Hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight is a gift that few possess.
You libs seem to forget. Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic…one of those crazy fundamentalists you claim are capable of violence.
Wishy Washers.
Taxpayer
September 30th, 2009
2:44 pm
Let ‘em spend their money on nuclear weapons. It’s their choice as a sovereign nation. Let’s see how THEY act as a nuclear power. Having that power in one’s possession is not all it’s cracked up to be. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that there are companies right here in the US that would just love to profit from some ventures with them. Meanwhile, we should stay focused on minimizing the chances of them actually using a weapon against us and other concerned nations should do the same.
Turd Ferguson
September 30th, 2009
2:45 pm
Thanks Matilda…you may return to your slumber…*chirp, chirp, chirp*
Bosch
September 30th, 2009
2:48 pm
Bruno,
What purpose would it serve Iran to attack us? Good Lord, I’m having the same argument six years later.
Matilda
September 30th, 2009
2:48 pm
Thanks Turd. You’re so thoughtful. Bruno’s right, though. “..we will have to sit back and see what our entrusted leaders decide to do.” The President, Cabinet members, Generals, and other world leaders are not calling me for my opinion on this, and I seriously doubt they give a flip what you think, either.
Tom
September 30th, 2009
2:48 pm
Must build some more Green Zones, with plenty of Starbucks, BK’s, McD’s, theaters, video-game warehouses, Mommy-phones, comfy sleep quarters. Further endear the civilians to our wondrous ways. And bring Jesus too. More drones from Nevada. The real hero stuff. That’ll do it. Yup. Bring back BushDrunk from Crawlford.
Turd Ferguson
September 30th, 2009
2:49 pm
At this point, it seems taking out their facilities would be redundant as in the not to distant future they would be back again. NO…what we need here is to reach back to Reagans playbook and bankrupt their Country via UN sanctions, isolation etc.
Perhaps their is a better option?
Turd Ferguson
September 30th, 2009
2:50 pm
Entrusted – The President (Obobo). What a nice oxymoron.
Thanks Mattie…you may resume your slumber
Say What??
September 30th, 2009
2:52 pm
Bosch
September 30th, 2009
2:48 pm
You’re having the same argument 6 years later? Did Iran have long range nukes 6 years ago?
AmVet
September 30th, 2009
2:53 pm
Cheney? Listen to that screw up? Foresight???
OMF’ingG!
Is this the same buffoon that said we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators?
Or the dolt that said in 2005, “The insurgency was in its last throes?”
Or the f&ckup who said (about the economic meltdown), “Don’t blame Bush, nobody saw this coming.”
A “I had priorities other than military service”, draft-dodging coward, a proven inveterate liar and deadly moron.
But still clearly a hero to the always bamboozled “conned-servatives”.
All I can say, is that it must be very dark and malodorous up there…
N.J.
September 30th, 2009
2:54 pm
Well, there is an interesting article in the Armed Forces Journal called “Blood Borders: How the Middle East Would Look Better”. At least from the American need to control the oil in that region looks.
Basically you create an Arab Shiite State by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and putting the Shiite Majority in charge. Then you sever off the entire eastern coast of Saudi Arabia and give it to Iraq. The you overthrow the government of Iran and have the Arab Shi’ite State merge in some form of Union with the Iranian Shi’ite nation which has a new leader as a result of regime change, which of course is beholden to America for putting and keeping him in power.
Then pretty much 90 percent of the oil of the Middle East is in the hands of an American allied Shi’ite nation, and the Sunnis return to being camel jockeys:
Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
BY RALPH PETERS
International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
The map of the new middle east is no longer linked to the article, but another website has it:
http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html#neocon
Of course an Iran with nukes would be a lot harder to create this new map of the Middle East.
AmVet
September 30th, 2009
2:55 pm
I wouldn’t worry too much chest-pounders and chickenhawks.
The odds are pretty decent that the Uppity Muslim will again capitulate to his monied masters at General Dynamics and Haliburton…
Mrs. Godzilla
September 30th, 2009
2:55 pm
Say what
no rose colored glasses I…..trifocals. Clear sight is very important to me.
Yes, It appears “imadinnerjacket” et al have ltttle fear of internal war, but no real stomach for it externally.
Smells of bluster to me.
As of this date no Iranian terrorists have flown planes into buildings.
That would be Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon.
If, you’re wearing a war bonnet, I would suggest you put it back in the hatbox.
I’ve seen some interesting talk about energy and financial sanctions, tuff stuff, that looks good to me, for a start.
Paul
September 30th, 2009
2:56 pm
Succinctly stated, Jay.
Problem is, our President has said a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. He’s laid down a pretty definite marker. Now we’re into a lot of perceptions. Ahmadinejad’s gambling and so far it appears he thinks Obama’s bluffing. While our striking has serious ramifications, so does doing nothing. Just as it is speculated striking Iran would rally the people around, if not their leader, then their country (the Russian WWII model) – one can also make a strong case that doing nothing would in fact strengthen Ahmadinejad and embolden the Iranians. The Americans talked, threatened, gave ultimatums… then did nothing.
The President has one advantage – uncertainty. Our enemies are not certain what he will do in a given situation. They have an idea – not much – but like Saddam, they may miscalculate.
Jackie
[[Having 1 or 10 nuclear weapons make them a threat to whom?]] To answer that, one has to listen to what Iran’s said. If you were a neighboring country whom Iran has described as illegitimate, with no right to be, that would soon cease to exist, statements made while a nuke program was underway, what would you risk?
[[They are not insane enough to believe that they can attack ANYONE with any of those weapons without knowing they will draw an immediate, rapid and overwhelming response from many countries.]]
Why do you believe that defines insanity and not acceptable risk? And just who would the “many countries” be that would respond? And ‘overwhelming response’? Please – there would be a chorus within this country calling for proportionality, nonescalation, measured response, etc.
Turd Ferguson
September 30th, 2009
2:56 pm
Or perhaps a military venture with Britain, china, russia. We attack, conquer the heathens, kill as many as we want then a few more just to keep the populace in line, quarter up the Country and the oil, pump out all the oil, bankrupt OPEC, kill some more of the populace if need be, rape and pillage the countryside, steal everything, then hand over the hellhole to someone who enjoys heat, sand and snakes.
Say What??
September 30th, 2009
2:56 pm
I still get a kick seeing how some “fringers” react when they hear the name Cheney. Absolutely hilarious.
Bruno
September 30th, 2009
2:56 pm
“The U.S. and Israel are making the usual argument that an aggressor nation makes when smaller nations arm themselves.”
“What gives US the right? Don’t we have nuclear weapons? What makes it okay for us but not them?”
Demonize the US all you want, but the reality remains that if we weren’t the dominant superpower, someone else would be. I would rather it be us by a longshot. In case you guys forgot your recent history, the US emerged as a superpower following 2 world-wide conflicts that killed well over a hundred million people. Any reason you don’t think it can happen again?
Normal
September 30th, 2009
2:56 pm
SAY WHAT…What Iran calls a “long range missle” is not an ICBM. That “long range missle” can be shot down with a Patriot. It is no intercontinental threat. They have no intercontinental cabability unless they use FedEx