Santorum: Iran is 'enemy of our generation'...("no nuclear Iran -- There is no option here")

Pittsburgh Tribune ^ | Tuesday, August 29, 2006 | Brad Bumsted

[IrishMike]

HARRISBURG -- Islamic fascism is the "greatest threat we'll ever face," and Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are the driving forces behind a movement bent on destroying the United States, Sen. Rick Santorum said Monday. He said America needs to aggressively provide access to its oil reserves to decrease reliance on Middle East supplies.

In a speech to the Pennsylvania Press Club, the Penn Hills Republican portrayed Iran as a country intent on getting nuclear weapons.

"The principal leader of this Islamic fascist movement is Iran," Santorum said. "I believe this is the greatest enemy we will ever face. This is the enemy of our generation. It is the challenge of our time. And yet, we tend to play politics with it here in America -- sadly."

Santorum is seeking re-election to a third six-year term. He is trailing Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. in polls.

"We cannot have a nuclear Iran -- we cannot," Santorum said. "There is no option here. A nuclear Iran changes the world forever. The life you lead today is not the life you'll lead a day after Iran gets a nuclear bomb."

He called for tough sanctions, stopping short of threatening a military strike.

Santorum "clearly thinks it is better for him to talk about this than to talk about Iraq or gas prices," said Jack Treadway, a political science professor at Kutztown State University in Berks County.

Thomas Baldino, a political science professor at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, agreed that Santorum is trying to create a diversion from issues such as the war in Iraq, which is divisive and unpopular in polls. His rhetoric borders on "fear-mongering," Baldino said.

But Santorum does better in polls than Casey regarding the war on terror.

[IrishMike]

"You can't touch Alaska. You might disturb a caribou or two," Santorum said.

I like this guy, speaks like W used to.

[2001convSVT]

"We cannot have a nuclear Iran -- we cannot," Santorum said. "There is no option here. A nuclear Iran changes the world forever. The life you lead today is not the life you'll lead a day after Iran gets a nuclear bomb."

A lot of b.s. here, its a done deal and nothing short of war will stop it. The U.S. and its allies have no resolve to stop Iran militarily and that is what it will take. The way Iran is progressing with North Korean help and a working nuclear reactor the Iranians will have a workable plutonium production line within 1 year. And will be able to produce from 2 to 10 fission bombs per year. My the good Lord have mercy on all of us.

[Dannebrog]

Is it such a bad thing if Iran gets atomic weapons? Surely they have as much right to them as any existing nuclear power has, and on a positive note a 'balance of terror' might help stabilize a very unstable region. After all, the cold war looked much less like becoming a hot war once the USA and USSR both had the ability to obliterate each other (and everyone else for that matter).
Iran's entry into the nuclear club at this late stage can only be about deterrence, as opposed to aggression, as the "2 to 10 fission bombs per year" doesn't compare to the several thousand owned by their near neighbors (Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel), and any first-use by Iran would surely result in its obliteration.

[JasonC]

Naivety will kill you.

They will get 25 or so for deterrence against retaliation, and then they will give 5 a year to Hezbollah and 5 a year to Al Qaeda. The former will target Israel, not from Iranian soil. The latter will target the US, and later any European government that supports us against them. And by target I mean actually set them off and destroy entire cities.

Then who do you obliterate exactly? Lebanon? Iran? China? Because they are all involved. And if Israel say decides to obliterate Iran, it obliterates them right back. Also, good luck getting democrats to obliterate anything. They will be wetting themselves and writing large checks.

[Dannebrog]

Why would Iran equip Al Qaeda with nuclear weapons when their proxies (or franchises, depending on your terminology) are currently fighting it out in Iraq?

[Ancesthntr]

Dannebrog

Troll since August 29, 2006

BTW, if Iran gets nukes, Santorum is right, the world as we know it is over. Iran's nutjob leader has threatened to nuke Israel, and Iran does not need hundreds of nukes to destroy it - only 1 or 2 will effectively destroy that tiny country. Israel would, of course, nuke Iran and all Arab countries in response to going down - and think of the effect on the world of the Aswan High Dam and the Saudi oil fields being nuked. Iran will also be able to threaten to nuke Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, two of the largest oil exporters in the world. Either of these things would devastate the world economy...and is, therefore, the absolutely perfect tool for massive blackmail.

[Dannebrog]

Nuclear weapons haven't been fired in anger since 1945, shortly after they were invented and when they were possessed by only one country. Since then ownership has spread to at least eight states and yet they haven't been used. In some respects it seems that proliferation might decrease the likelihood of their use as the deterrent effect is increased. Also it might decrease the likelihood of massively destructive conventional wars as two nuclear powers have never come (directly) to blows.

[Ancesthntr]

Deterrence only works against RATIONAL opponents. Someone denying that the Holocaust took place, while simultaneously and openly planning to "finish the job" by "wiping the "Zionist Entity off the map" is not exactly rational. Oh, and he also believes that the 12th Imam is going to come out of a well sometime next year (after having been dead for some 1200 or so years), but only if the world is engulfed in a massively destructive conflict.

He not only doesn't care about preserving what he and his country have, he's actively interested in destroying everything. How on Earth do you deal with someone like that? Could the US negotiate with the Kamikaze pilots, or the Japanese soldiers intent on killing Americans until they couldn't, and who would NEVER surrender? Can you negotiate with someone who's got a bomb strapped to them, who WANTS to die because he'll get 72 raisins afterwards? No, you cannot, because these people are not rational - and neither is Mr. Ahwannajihad over in Iran. Deterrence won't - CAN'T - work against someone with his mindset.

[JasonC]

Right up until they are used again, nuclear weapons won't have been used until then. It is a cluelessly stupid point. Nobody flew commercial airliners into the side of buildings as a political act before they did that, either.

Deterrence depended on the enemy valuing their own society and its cities more than warfare. Attacks on us brought retaliation that destroyed multiple regimes in western asia but they haven't had the slightest effect on the bombers willingness to bomb. They are so worried about our threats they don't even bother to lie, it is more fun to prance around defying our leaders as pussies.

People said responsible nuclear states would never proliferate the weapons, as it wasn't in their interest and it might bring retaliation from their enemies. But it hasn't stopped the Chinese and Russians from helping North Korea and Iran. When those have nukes, they won't have any greater trouble proliferating to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. You see any consequences flowing back to Russia or China in any of this? From us I mean. Nope, they get a clean bill of statesmanship. Iran will expect the same when it proliferates, too.

It is the published grand strategy of the Chinese military. It is the stated goal and long term plan of Al Qaeda. It is the repeatedly stated goal of the present leaders of Iran, political military and clerical. They want to use nuclear weapons to reverse the verdict of WW II - in their own words.

And they will. You won't stop them, Dems won't stop them, Chamberlain won't stop them, Munich won't stop them.

[FreeAndRight]

If I were IRAN, I would nuke OPEC countries and then make all non-believers bow down to me for drops of oil ;-)

[FreeAndRight]

One nuke = no Israel.
One nuke = EMP over North America
One nuke = no more major west coast see ports
One nuke = no more major east coast see ports
One nuke = hundred of thousands dead US BOYZ over at that $hit hole we call meadle east

Is it a bad idea for Iran to have one? I don't know it depends what you stand for?

Is it a bad idea for Hitler to burn 6 mil Jews? I don't know it depends what you stand for!!!!~!!!

[itsahoot]

I like this guy, speaks like W used to.

Nobody speaks like GW, maybe Ford came close, but GW hasn't changed his speaking points in 6 years.

[IrishMike]

Is it a bad idea for Iran to have one? I don't know it depends what you stand for?
Is it a bad idea for Hitler to burn 6 mil Jews? I don't know it depends what you stand for!!!!~!!!
.
.
.
Like your thinking.

[RightWhale]

We cannot have a nuclear Iran -- we cannot

But, there it is.

[itsahoot]

Also it might decrease the likelihood of massively destructive conventional wars as two nuclear powers have never come (directly) to blows.

BS, you don't remember Korea? Truman said himself he did not use nuclear weapons because he feared China either had them or could get them from Russia, both assumptions were however wrong.

[FreeAndRight]

OK. Then I have a plan. What we should do is evenly distribute all of the nukes between the world powers. That should give us a peace of mind. RIGHT??????

I just don't know about that hidden Imam, I mean we have to give him a nuke too, to keep the world balanced. But then where do we find him? Oh I know, let's wipe the Israel from the face of the earth. The smell of the Jews burning will surely grab his attention...

Pathetic!!!!

[Skywarner]

Yes, Virginia, a nuclear Iran (as it is today) would be a very, very bad situation.

Why, you ask???

One reason stands above all of the rest: Iran is led by a madman who who openly, publicly stated that he intends to hasten the arrival of the 12th wack-a-mole iman (sp?) via the chaos that will ensue via Isreal's destruction.

The defacto policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) does not apply in this situation and to think otherwise is simply wishful thinking.

If you think Hitler was crazy, you ain't seen nothing yet. ImADinnerJacket is THAT kind of threat.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

The $64 question: Will the US and/or Israel allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon? The fate of the civilized world hinges on the answer to that question. Confidential sources in Israel have told me the answer is "no". We will know one way or another before the 2008 election.

[RightWhale]

The fate of the civilized world hinges on the answer to that question.

Iran very likely has had nukular weapons for a decade.

[GulfBreeze]

Look D-borg,
Iran is run by some pretty mentally unstable individuals. You must be out of your mind with the stuff you spout.

What's the matter, are you getting bored over on DU?