Ahmadinejad Ground Zero request

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, i think i can counter this rather easily.




1) Ahmadinejad's antisemitism stems from political growth. The Zionist statements are what the ignorant masses want to hear in Iran, and thats what he gives them to stay in power.




2) We have no evidence to show that these are deeply held beliefs, his position changed after he went ascended into office so there is no past history to compare to.





sounds like a typical american politician to me, changing with the wind to assure he keeps his job. Isnt it odd that his rhetoric is never as venomous when he speaks to the world body at the UN?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure how much power Ahmadinejad actually possesses. He is a front for the clerics. I think this is part of the problem, the clerics are much more behind the scenes than Ahmadinejad and it's pretty hard to guess what any of them are thinking.

The other problem is whether he means what he says or not, he is still saying it, and he is still inciting crowds with his rhetoric. Now step into Israel's shoes, what they said is on the table 100% while one can only guestimate about their sincerity. And even if one can assume that Ahmadinejad (and hence, the clerics) are not as sincere as they sound, the people they govern probably are as are many higher ups in the government apparatus.

I can understand Israel determination to react with force if necessary to prevent the Iranians from obtaining a bomb.

[ QUOTE ]
PS to John Kilduff : "The Bomb" is not as big of concern that it was in WWII or in the cold war with Russia, non-conventional weapons such as water source poisoning or planes flown into skyscrapers are far more damaging than a nuke can be. 9/11 caused more destruction than a typical suitcase nuke would (the most likely use of a nuclear weapon at this stage), the greatest strength of a nuke bomb is the terror it would spread, not the actual explosion itself. A nuclear bomb is crippled without a delivery method, and unless Iran can fly a series of bombers over American cities (very unlikely) we have little to fear. The most likely candidate for a nuke would be a dirty bomb, which packs enough power to damage a few 1,000 feet at most + radiation sickness.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the risk of terrorists denotating a nuclear bomb are extremely slim. To all those who believe the risk is real, look into how much a nuclear bomb costs to create. When the United States built the reactors to make the material for the first three bombs, 50,000 people were employed to build the reactors in Washington state. Who knows how many were employed at Los Alamos and other sites? Take the extreme costs a bomb's creator faces, and then add in the extreme risk of reprisal said creator faces when it's determined he supplied the bomb. It's rather apparent that saying Iran or Lil'Kim are going to give a bomb to terrorists is propaganda.

However, from a military perspective, there is simply no weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb for the projection of power. Iran has delivery systems in place to project its power on all the regions the United States and Israel are worried about. US cities are not at risk, but all of the Middle East, including Israel, is.