Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???


PDA






David
August 13, 2005, 11:31 PM
According to this article, it appears like the President has made an implied "threat" to use force against Iran if they produce a nuclear weapon.

I wonder if this is just a "game of chess" he's playing with Iran, or if push comes to shove, will he REALLY authorize an attack on Iran?

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=152461406&p=y5z46zyyz

'All options open', Bush tells Iran

US President George Bush today warned that “all options are on the table” if Iran refuses to comply with international demands to halt its nuclear programme.

Noting that he has already used force to secure the United States, he said in an interview with Israel TV that the US and Israel “are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon”.

If diplomacy fails, President Bush said “all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president.”

He added: “You know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”

Bush's warning came as Iran showed no sign of backing down in the row over Tehran's decision to press ahead with uranium development.

The Iranians are also pushing ahead on another track – construction of a heavy-water reactor that Tehran says will be used only for peaceful purposes but which could also produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

It will take at least another four years for Iran to complete the reactor, making it a less immediate worry for the west than the uranium programme, parts of which are either in operation or ready to operate at a moment’s notice.

But ultimately, the heavy-water reactor could prove more dangerous, since bombs made with plutonium are smaller and easier to fit onto a ballistic missile.

In a comprehensive package aimed at reining in Iran’s nuclear programme, Europe proposed that it give up the heavy-water project in return for a light-water reactor, seen by arms control experts as easier to monitor to ensure it is not being used for weapons.

Iran – which says its nuclear programme is peaceful – rejected the entire package this week. The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation called the offer on the heavy-water reactor a “joke”.

“We have developed this capability. The heavy water project today is a reality,” Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also vice president, said on state-run television.

“This knowledge now belongs to Iran. Nobody can take it from us. As they (Europeans) see Iran’s determination, they will be forced to show flexibility and accept it.”

While Iran has agreed to suspend parts of its uranium programme as a gesture in negotiations with Europe, it has repeatedly rejected European calls for it to also freeze the heavy-water project, which is moving full steam ahead.

Iran says the heavy-water reactor will have a range of peaceful applications. It says it intends to use the facility in the pharmaceutical, biological and biotechnological fields as well as in cancer diagnosis and control.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is aimed only at producing electricity, but the US accuses it of secretly intending to build nuclear weapons.

Europe is trying through negotiations to persuade Iran to give up technology that can be used for military purposes and limit its programme to possessing reactors using fuel provided from abroad.

The 40-megawatt heavy-water reactor could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon each year, an amount experts commonly say is 8.8 pounds.

The reactor – ringed with anti-aircraft guns as are all of Iran’s nuclear facilities – is being built at the foot of a mountain in the deserts outside the small town of Khondab.

Nuclear weapons can be produced using either plutonium or highly enriched uranium as the explosive core. Either substance can be produced in the process of running a reactor.

Uranium is enriched by turning the raw ore into gas, which is then spun in centrifuges. If it is enriched to a low level, it can be used as fuel for a reactor. At a high level, it can be used for a bomb.

Iran’s enrichment programme is at an advanced stage with thousands of centrifuges ready to start working.

While Iran is continuing its suspension of enrichment, it ended its freeze this week on the first step in the process – turning raw uranium into gas - bringing a sharp rebuke from Europe and today’s warning from President Bush.
******
:what: :uhoh: :what:

If you enjoyed reading about "Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DeseoUnTaco
August 13, 2005, 11:42 PM
Iran would make the Iraq occupation look easy. Seriously, Iran has more than twice as many people as Iraq. Iran has a more stable political system with less tribal and ethnic divisions than Iraq had. Iran's government has more popular support than Iraq's did. Iran's leadership is not guilty of the same level of human rights abuses that Iraq's was. Iran is regarded as a more normal place with closer connections to Europe than Iraq was. Iran's geography may be even more challenging.

We've already lost the war in Iraq and I think a war in Iran would be much more difficult. We would be trounced.

The US sustains its power because everyone is afraid of the US. The fear itself is the basis of the power. If the fear is ruptured then that aspect of the power is gone. The fear already has been ruptured. All over the world, countries that think they might want to stand up to the US are looking at Iraq and saying, "well, Iraq is making their lives hell and they're going to have to leave, so they won't be able to do anything to us". Iran is in the same situation.

Standing Wolf
August 13, 2005, 11:43 PM
That's the trouble with land wars in Asia: there's a fair amount of Asia to fight in.

WT
August 13, 2005, 11:58 PM
I wonder if the Iranians are using the Canadian CANDU heavy water process?

I know the Canadians sell a lot of these units to underdeveloped countries. I remember seeing the Canadian Prime Minister at a ribbon cutting ceremony for one in Romania.


Back to the original questions: Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???
.............. NFW.

Preacherman
August 14, 2005, 12:02 AM
I don't think that a land invasion of Iran by US forces is on the cards, for many reasons. However, this leaves open several interesting possibilities:

1. Air strikes against nuclear and related targets;

2. Support of (even creation of) an internal insurgency in Iran;

3. Blockade of Iranian oil exports;

4. Interdiction of Iranian air space to prohibit international flights;

5. Mining of Iranian ports;

6. Disabling of Iranian oil production.

Any or all of these would put a whole lot of pressure on Iran without exposing US forces to major danger in large numbers.

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 12:03 AM
What military would we fight them with? We are already spread thin with our world-wide commitments, and I don't think recruitment is working out the way the government hoped.

Of course, if we do it would not be the first time an Empire spread its military too thin.

taliv
August 14, 2005, 12:09 AM
Iran has a more stable political system with less tribal and ethnic divisions than Iraq had.

Iran's government has more popular support than Iraq's did.

Iran's leadership is not guilty of the same level of human rights abuses that Iraq's was.

We've already lost the war in Iraq...


put down the crackpipe


If we want to stop Iran from making nukes, it's as good as done. That's a walk in the park for our military. It would not be significantly more difficult than the spanking we gave Iraq.

We aren't (as far as I know) talking about overthrowing the iranian gov and setting up our own puppet gov. We're not talking about extended police action here. We're talking about shutting down their nuclear facilities.

Heck, that can be done from orbit.

Cosmoline
August 14, 2005, 12:09 AM
No.

beerslurpy
August 14, 2005, 12:09 AM
We dont have to occupy Iran to destroy their factilities or even to destroy the entire country. Israel didnt occupy Iraq to destroy their nuke facilities in the 80s.

Which raises the whole question of why we bothered to occupy iraq (to intimidate syria and iran?), when every other country in the region is better acquainted with the language, customs and people of Iraq and all likely have intelligence assets in the country. .

rock jock
August 14, 2005, 12:15 AM
We dont have to occupy Iran to destroy their factilities or even to destroy the entire country. Israel didnt occupy Iraq to destroy their nuke facilities in the 80s. I have to agree with this. The hard part of the Iraq situation has been after we took down Saddam's regime. Why we felt any obligation to start a democracy there I have no idea, but from a strictly military standpoint, there is no reason we couldn't beat Iran handily.

yucaipa
August 14, 2005, 12:20 AM
I don't see the people who run Iran ever giving up their program. The nut-jobs behind the curtain who really run the country are on a "mission from god"

Once they obtain nuclear weapons 1st they will go after Israel, 2nd they will go after "the great Satan"

From Iran's POV there's no incentive at all to take any military program off line, "the great Satan" all ready as a standing army on both it's west and east borders.

Monkeyleg
August 14, 2005, 12:26 AM
And could it just be that we went into Iraq to establish staging grounds for actions against countries such as Iran or even Saudi Arabia?

The "Bush was an idiot for believing flawed intelligence about Iraq" argument has worn thin.

Since the World Trade Center attacks, the plan has been to secure ground in the Middle East where we could either intimidate or directly attack enemy countries more effectively.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 12:28 AM
Iran is ready to throw off the rule of it's mad mullahs. An Afghanistan type operation, Iranian rebels with imbedded special forces calling in airstrikes, would work fine. I bet there are A-Teams working in Iran as I type this.

SIGarmed
August 14, 2005, 12:34 AM
We've already lost the war in Iraq and I think a war in Iran would be much more difficult. We would be trounced.

We already lost the war in Iraq? That sure is news to me.
You've got to be kidding.

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 12:39 AM
Ah, I see Monkeyleg... the true reason for invading Iraq has been revealed... at least until the next true reason comes along.

So for the goals-in-constant-motion in Iraq have been:

Eliminate WMD
Topple Saddam
Free the Iraqi People
Create a Middle East Democracy
Fight terrorists abroad, not at home
and now so we can have a staging ground to fight Iran, Syria, or whoever.

All these goals are admirable, but the fact that the present administration can't remember from day to day why we are there is troubling. Bush wonders why American support for the war in Iraq has dwindled to an all time low (now about 39%). The answer is simple. He won't set a consistent goal, and then pull no punches at acheiving it.

I don't believe we need a staging ground in Iraq to keep Iran's nuclear program in check. The US Navy can do that from hundreds of miles away at sea.

David
August 14, 2005, 12:42 AM
I agree with Preacherman and the others who think our most likely military response to Iran's nuclear program would be some type of LIMITED strategic attack, as opposed to a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iran.

:scrutiny: :eek: :scrutiny:

The question is, of course, if we did attack Iran's nuclear plants, what type of response could we expect from Iran in return?

An Iran funded terrorist attack on US soil?

A direct attack on US Troops in Iraq?

A direct attack on Israel?

No response at all?

None of the above?

All of the above?

Interesting times in which we live...

:what: :uhoh: :what:

DeseoUnTaco
August 14, 2005, 01:07 AM
What military would we fight them with? We are already spread thin with our world-wide commitments, and I don't think recruitment is working out the way the government hoped.
We would need a draft. We would need to draft about a million soldiers to a) squish the insurgency in Iraq and b) have a hope of occupying Iran. Drafting a million soldiers is a political impossibility right now.
Of course, if we do it would not be the first time an Empire spread its military too thin.
Yes they only get to do it once.

For the others who said that full-scale occupation isn't necessary: That's true. The nuke facilities could be taken out with air strikes, limited ground operations, that kind of thing. That's practical and possible. Another Iraq-style "regime change" is just not possible.

As for the US losing the war in Iraq: Yes, we lost it. The occupation gets weaker and the insurgency gets stronger every day. They are killing US soldiers with remote-detonated bombs. The more the soldiers go out on patrol the more they get killed. To make the occupation work we would need to double or triple the occupation force and the amount of patrolling which would double or triple the casualties. None of this is politically possible and the insurgents are well aware of it.

Oh yeah, we did achieve the objective of getting rid of the regime, but we still have lost the war because we didn't meet the other objective of creating a friendly and stable government there, which would enable a guaranteed flow of oil. Didn't happen, won't happen, time to cut the losses and go home.
The question is, of course, if we did attack Iran's nuclear plants, what type of response could we expect from Iran in return?

An Iran funded terrorist attack on US soil?

A direct attack on US Troops in Iraq?

A direct attack on Israel?

No response at all?

None of the above?

All of the above?
Hard to say. I doubt there would be a direct attack on Israel, or if there were one it would be something symbolic, not really destructive. No one wants to get involved with that. An attack on US troops in Iraq is possible. There are a lot of Shiites in Iraq who would be happy to help in that. Terrorist attacks on the US are less likely. That's not a productive thing to do. No response at all is possible. That way they actually win brownie points with Europe. Iran used to be quite a Europeanized country and elements of that still remain. They are Indo-European people, just like Europeans.

R.H. Lee
August 14, 2005, 01:21 AM
Iran can be brought to its knees without an American setting a boot on their soil. Any nuclear facilities can be obliterated by cruise missles from hundreds of miles away. End of that threat. Then demand that Iran use its influence to recall terrorists from anywhere in the world. Iran has seaports; destroy one a week, sinking ships and blocking harbors until they comply. Tell them (privately) that if the U.S. is the target of any terrorist act fulminated by Islamic extremism, one of their cities disappears. I'll bet things will get a whole lot quieter real quick.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 01:32 AM
As for the US losing the war in Iraq: Yes, we lost it.
Utter nonsense. The insurgency is reduced to using children and dogs for their attacks, the Iraqi military is getting stronger every day, the Iraqi people are sick and tired of terrorists and are actually taking the law into their own hands and shooting them. Every report from soldiers in Iraq confirm that we are in fact winning.

You really should stop getting your news for Michael Moore's web site.

Cosmoline
August 14, 2005, 03:19 AM
We already lost the war in Iraq? That sure is news to me.

I've heard this from many anti-war folks. They've convinced themselves that the actions of a handful of suicidal terrorists means Iraq has rejected democracy. It's the same sort of weird self-deception that convinces them a draft is around the corner--or an invasion of Iran.

KriegHund
August 14, 2005, 03:32 AM
We didnt lose any 'war' in Iraq. Were just struggling with insurgents or if you like freedom fighters.

But Iran? We could kick their butss with minimal losses. Occupation is a different story.

Thats the thing, it seems, american forces can kick anyones buttocks, but only for a small time.

jdberger
August 14, 2005, 04:00 AM
Ah, I see Monkeyleg... the true reason for invading Iraq has been revealed... at least until the next true reason comes along.

So for the goals-in-constant-motion in Iraq have been:

Eliminate WMD
Topple Saddam
Free the Iraqi People
Create a Middle East Democracy
Fight terrorists abroad, not at home
and now so we can have a staging ground to fight Iran, Syria, or whoever.

All these goals are admirable, but the fact that the present administration can't remember from day to day why we are there is troubling. Bush wonders why American support for the war in Iraq has dwindled to an all time low (now about 39%). The answer is simple. He won't set a consistent goal, and then pull no punches at acheiving it.

Seems to me that the reasons have been pretty consistent with what the Senate approved when they authorized the President to go to war in October 2002. Here is the link to the resolution S J Res 45 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107TFC34I::)

Hard work is...uh..hard. Some folks have the stomach for it, and others don't. The idea is that we are looking well beyond instant gratification, attempting to establish a liberal democracy in a region that has never experienced it. Difficult, but possible (but I've always been an optimist).

As to the other;

Oh yeah, we did achieve the objective of getting rid of the regime, but we still have lost the war because we didn't meet the other objective of creating a friendly and stable government there, which would enable a guaranteed flow of oil. Didn't happen, won't happen, time to cut the losses and go home. Case in point.

Stop thinking of these guys as "insurgents". You give them too much legitimacy. Truly, they are just right wing paramilitary death squads. The proof that they are losing is that the Shiites, who are also the targets of these maniacs, haven't started stringing up Suunis on principle. Self restraint and trust in the impartiality and rule of law is a HUGE step toward a liberal democracy.

itgoesboom
August 14, 2005, 04:02 AM
No, we can kick anyones butts for a significant amount of time.

Unfortunatly, our politicians won't let us finish the job and fight the war the way it needs to be fought.

Some things just don't change, and some lessons are never learned.

I.G.B.

Joejojoba111
August 14, 2005, 04:20 AM
There are still some big crucial moral elements that have been disregarded in a disconcerting manner. Even the Soviets would have had more concern for their actions than this.

Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

Furthermore Israel, supplied almost certainly by America, has an illegal but completely tolerated nuclear weapon status, and they receive absolutely no negative feedback on it. They are in fact most likely the strongest argument the Iranians have for needing their own nukes. And it is a damning argument.

Then you have the arguments that the USA conducted de-facto WMD attacks on Iran by supplying nerve agents to Iraq, who killed millions of Iranians in an unjust war they started. This is another black eye. Couple that with the good relations with Iraq kept after the world understood the scope of it's atrocities (roads built through swamps using nothing but human corpses from chemical attacks) as symbolized by the dated photograph of a smiling Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand, and you have an PR problem.

Then you have the problem that Iran is a democracy, so you go for regime change what do we plan to substitute? Replace their unique mixture of theology and democracy with the standard American-supporting hereditary tyrant which abuses his populace and breeds terrorists who fly planes into the World Trade Center?

Furthermore Iran has several significant geographical differences from Iraq. In almost every quantifiable way their geography has differences, and these differences almost invariably suit the defence, increased size, mountain ranges, etc.

Then you have the presence of a working military, and not a stupid one. They appear to have been permitting US military aircraft to overfly them recenty. Smart because there is little an F-16 aircraft can photograph that a satellite can't, and smart because the aircraft wants Iran to power-up it's air defence network so it can chart it for destruction. Smarter yet because the US officials keenly desire cassus belli such as Iranians mercilessly shooting down a US aircraft, which naturally was accidentally off course due to a hapless technical malfunction.

Oh yes, and Iran has little useful systems which, if used smartly, would make military action come at a price. The SS22 missiles and things like this are potent systems, and if the Iranians are smart, which no shot-at or shot-down US F-16s suggest they are, then the Iranians will not wait for the US in its usual MO of taking 5 months fo amass forces and then strike. They would be smart to strike the naval forces with things like the SS-22 before they are prepared to strike. An American general playing opfor won a scenario war-game simulating the 2nd US-Iraqi war by attacking the US navy with small boats as they gathered. The war game was stopped, the navy re-floated, and the game continued. Then he frustrated them by using motorcycle couriers instead of wireless for communications, well he did a lot of things that worked and they kept changing the rules until he resigned from the Army. And this was all in the newpapers, so if Iran is smart they might have read the papers. And while they do have small boats to attack with, they also have things like the sunburn missile.

In short Bush is practicing brinksmanship, which is also a smart move. Iraq gave him street cred, he can depend on the media at home for domestic control, and it's already worked once on Syria. Plus he owes Israel a favor after pushing the withdrawl from disputed territories.


Or maybe I'm reading too much into this, and it really is as simple as it sounds.

jdberger
August 14, 2005, 04:51 AM
Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

Good point. A parallel is the "armed society = polite society" argument.

There is a great book on this issue, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate , by Scott D. Sagan, Kenneth N. Waltz (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393967166/qid=1124005679/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-8464319-7259125?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Drizzt
August 14, 2005, 05:06 AM
Iran would be an entirely different nut to crack. Yes, we can hit their facilities with ease, but Iran has a lot more tools at their disposal to hit back. First, it would be very easy for Iran to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, or at least make passage through there difficult and costly. That will cause a spike in oil prices like we have not seen. Iran also has some very capable missile boats equipped with the Chinese C-802 missile. These suckers are bad news, and present a very real threat to US carriers and other ships in the region.

Fortunately, Iran also has something else Iraq did not. A very real and very vocal element of the population that is clamoring for change. Iran may well be looking at another revolution before too long, the only question is whether we want to wait for that to happen, as the nuclear program will most likely see results before the youth of Iran have the power to initiate change.

Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

The difference being that the US, Russia and China tend to focus on more of a strategic use of nukes, rather than a tactical use. India and Pakistan do have nukes, but not because the rest of the world was real happy about it. That just comes from countries and individuals being willing to sell out the future for a few bucks. As for Israel's possession of nukes, I would see that as more of a defensive measure than anything else. Israel does not have a stated goal of the destruction on Iran and driving its people into the sea.

Spiphel Rike
August 14, 2005, 05:52 AM
You do know that those reactors and things do have other uses right?
Israel can have nukes as a "defensive measure" but Iran can't?

Invading Iran would be very impractical since the Iraq war's costing a packet already. Sure you could attack their facilities and destroy all their stuff and generally wreck a democratic country but why bother?

Can anyone fill me on the difference between "strategic" and "tactical" use of nuclear weapons?

God that's a lot of questions.

bg
August 14, 2005, 09:12 AM
Just to give this thread another warm fuzzy feeling, look what the new
pres of Iran has gone off and done..>
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/135782/*http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_cabinet
Political analyst Saeed Madani agreed, saying that the appointment of people associated with security forces to executive positions would retard Iran's progress
Retard is right !

redneck2
August 14, 2005, 09:54 AM
Quote:
Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

You must be a big time lefty. "It's not fair that we've got _____ and they don't. No WONDER they feel inferior. If we just give _____ to them, they'll be our friends!!!!" OK Mr. Rogers, wake up and go back to your neighborhood.

We've had nukes for over 60 years. Thousands of nukes...little ones, big ones. Only used 2 so far. Anybody think that Iran (or any of their friends) would hesitate using one for a second if they could get away with it? Now that they've got little Palestine back, they're close enough to smoke Israel. Giving away that land was a BAD move. Inviting your worst enemy into your house.

We could turn any country over there into an ashtray in 5 minutes. We choose not to. They would if they had the chance. You gotta quit believing that everyone thinks like us and has our values. That's the biggest problem with the left. "If we'd only REASON with them." Can't reason with unreasonable people. I don't hate them, but they hate us simply because we exist.

As for "lost the war in Iraq"....dude, you're listening to the wrong people. Now I realize it's not paradise, but what do you expect? Heck, we can't even agree on stuff here and we've existed for 200+ years. You want to establish a new county, constitution, and legislative structure in 90 seconds??? If one of the statistics I heard is correct, there's less people in New York than Iraq, but more people are murdered on an average day in New York than we lose in Iraq. Maybe New Yorkers should move to Iraq where it's safe.

As one of the tag lines here says, Rome wasn't the lone ruler of the known world fr 400 years because they were PC, it's because they kicked the crap out of people that opposed them and befriended those that worked with them

LSCurrier
August 14, 2005, 09:56 AM
The problem is that this world problem thing is only escalating. I will not be stopped - no matter who is office as US president. The radical countries of the world, whether we are talking radical religious or redical terrorist (which for the most part the radical terrorist are radical religious), want to defy the world and tear it apart. There are countries in the world that cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons - NOT EVEN A SINGLE NUKE!! Countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, many countries of Africa, and many other countries where the countries own people are slaughtered by their own leaders cannot be allowed to have nuclear capability. If these countries will slaughter thousands upon thousands of their own people who can they be trusted to respect life elsewhere while possessing the worlds most destructive weapon? It is not too hard to look at the current world situation and match things up with and forcast future happenings to the foretold happenings as told in the Bible and the book of Revelation. I do not see Iran backing down and cancelling their nuclear program. I do not see the US or Israel allowing Iran to continue their nuclear program and develop nuclear weapons. Iran has stated that their purpose for the nuclear program is peaceful, but what will they say if they are allowed to continue and one day annouce they have nuclear weapons? What will the world be able to do then? Will it not be too late? Should the world then live in fear of Iran and the terrorists that it supports? How soon after that will a terrorist bombing strike occur that involves a nuke taking out a city instead of bus or train? What will the world do then? Remember: An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

We should always work towards peace, but do not be deceived and become another Neville Chamberlain coming home to England with signed peace agreement in hand to find out shortly later that "Hitler" has no intention to living up to the peace that you have claimed.

Personally I don't believe that anything will change the future so that Armageddon is avoided. I believe that we will see things comes to pass as foretold and that it will happen within my lifetime.

Luke

280PLUS
August 14, 2005, 09:58 AM
That's the trouble with land wars in Asia: there's a fair amount of Asia to fight in.

We'd still have bills leftover at the end of the money, that's for sure...

:what:

stevelyn
August 14, 2005, 10:09 AM
What is this hangup we have with the Middle East? North Korea is a bigger threat and is being run by a real nutcase. Yet we don't have too much to say to them. I wonder why? :scrutiny:
I agree with what another poster said. Why should Israel have nukes and Iran not?

redneck2
August 14, 2005, 10:12 AM
The problem is that this world problem thing is only escalating. I will not be stopped - no matter who is office as US president. The radical countries of the world, whether we are talking radical religious or redical terrorist (which for the most part the radical terrorist are radical religious), want to defy the world and tear it apart. There are countries in the world that cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons - NOT EVEN A SINGLE NUKE!!
You got that right. Unfortunately, I believe you're correct. You've got nutso leaders and followers that would rather die killing their enemy than living. Only thing that hasn't fallen into place yet is China's march on the middle east. If we get into a squawk with Iran and choke off oil, I can see China massing troops on their western border and marching into Iran/Iraq and taking the oil. Once their military matches ours, what are we going to do?

Art Eatman
August 14, 2005, 01:06 PM
stevelyn, there would be a total absence of interest in the middle east beyond tourism except for OIL. That's the lifeblood of the developed world. The rest of the developed world is happy as bugs that once again, Uncle Sugar is carrying the load in attempting to maintain some semblance of long-term stability. No matter what sort of political yammering against us is going on, they're happy that we're carrying the load.

In the 1970s, there was an oil tanker every eight miles between the Persian Gulf and Japan. Now, not only is Japan importing more oil, Chinese imports exceed those of Japan. Call it a "pipeline of gulps". Needless to say, the Japanese and Chinese are happy as all getout that we're working toward stability for their energy futures.

Note that the GDP of all of the mideast oil producers, except for that oil, is about the same as Finland. Add that tidbit to the reality that the governments are thugocracies, and you can readily see the problem that arises with militant Jihadism.

Art

Drizzt
August 14, 2005, 01:08 PM
No, I don't agree that North Korea is more of a threat. Kim Jong-Il wants attention, and he sees his best way of getting it to be screaming "hey, I've got nukes over here!"

Kim is an insane, deranged little man, but he's not about to give up his Mercedes-Benzs, his 20 year-old single malt whiskys, and his harem of women to send a nuke anyone's direction. The current leadership of Iran and those they are supporting, however, would love to go out in a blaze of glory if they can take several million non-believers with them.

johnster999
August 14, 2005, 01:12 PM
Iran a "democracy"?

No. Iran is an Islamic theocracy with a democratic facade applied to calm it's people. Even the recent election of the figurehead president was likely rigged. The real power within the country lies with the mullahs who control the powerful Revolutionary Guard units who dominate the country.

Why should Israel have nukes and Iran not?

Because Israel is a close ally of the US and an actual functioning democracy seeking to defend itself from overwhelming enemy numbers. Iran is a radical Islamic state controlled by hateful mullahs that refer to the US as "the great Satan" and want to see the world dominated by their theology. An Israeli nuke is not going to be fired at the US or used to blackmail the US. An Iranian nuke will likely be used for exactly that.

Is war with Iran likely?

Yes, in some form. The so-called "war on terror" will rage for many years and Iran will be a part of that at some point. Should the Iranians develop a nuclear weapon that they can actually deploy, they become an untouchable base for all Islamic terrorists.

If we're attacking Iran why not North Korea? Isn't that hypocrisy?

Too late. Should have done that a decade ago. North Korea has already built nuclear weapons. See the above point. They are basically untouchable by direct military invasion. Any invasion force would be vulnerable to nuclear attack as would be South Korea. Our best option is to fight a cold war with N. Korea and wear them down over time as with the Soviets.

999

El Rojo
August 14, 2005, 01:18 PM
I don't think we need to worry about US forces taking on Iran anytime soon. Iran doesn't have ICBMs. I know a country that might be more concerned about Iran having nukes and they have been known to strike nuclear facilities before. If anyone is going to do a surgical strike on Iran, my money goes on Israel.

I enjoyed watching the Israeli consulate guy to the US on NBC this morning. He said straight up something like this. "We are giving peace a chance and the ball is in the Palestinians hands. Make no mistake about it Isreal is the strongest military force in the Middle East and any terror attacks will be met with extreme force." You gotta like the Israelis for their talking the talk and walking the walk.

And I believe in real politik. If Iran develops nukes, then that is their right. If Israel bombs the heck out of the Iranian program to keep it from coming on line, that is their right too. Basically force equals power in the Middle East. If you can back it up with force, you can get away with it. If you can't, you can't. And that is the way the ball bounces.

Sindawe
August 14, 2005, 02:02 PM
Something I've not seen in this discussion of Iran's nuclear program, and Bush's saber rattling over it, is the fact that by international treaty Iran is doing what it is entitled to do. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran may...Article IV 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html

Iran has statad that they are going to resume enrichment activities, as they are entitled to do under the NPT when used for peaceful purposes. Their stated aims are domestic power generation, pharmaceutical and research purposes. In support of this statement of only peaceful intent, Iran as informed the IAEI that it intends to resume enrichment in this document (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc648.pdf) (PDF file). Iran is saying "No, we are NOT building bombs. Come, inspect! Watch! Monitor!"

Baba Louie
August 14, 2005, 04:35 PM
What ART said.
Should we choose to ... ahem... "liberate" Iran... :scrutiny: It'll probably be said to be a "Nukulur" non-prolif thing for terror-type regimes... but it'd really about protecting Oil interests and keeping them safe... for the children. Now whether they're Chinese children or American children, I haven't got a clue.

And the price of our gasoline will go down... just like it has since we invaded, er, liberated, Iraq. Right?

How close is Afghanistan to Iran again? Who's got troops there? And what country sits to Iran's west? Who's got troops there?

There's a name for that kind of play in chess... I forget what they call it.

Waitone
August 14, 2005, 05:49 PM
The US shot it bolt in Iraq. No more military to burn. Doing so would require an increase in boots and that is precisely the opposite of the intentions of the ruling class. It wants to wage war without that blood and flesh thingy.

Iran may appear to be stable but it is anything but. The young generation (something like 1/2 the population) has had it right up to here with the theocratic rulers. Popular dissent is muted but present and growing.

Israel can not and will not tolerate nukes under the control of Iran's mullah's. The rhetoric from Iran is just too hot, too dangerous, and too inflamatory. Israel (and the US for that matter) just assumes as soon as nukes are available they will be used. Neither the US nor Israel can tolerate the idea of a nuclear umbrella held by Iran. The nightmare scenario is a nuclear umbrella held by Iran while various terror groups conduct their mayhem on targets. I believe the US has passed the word to whoever is listening that an WMD attack on the US will be viewed in an unfriendly manner and that our response will be breathtaking, savage, and final. A nuclear umbrella would counter threats of a credible response by the US.

If Bush is rattle the saber, he rattles someone else's. I think he just passed on a word of advice to Iran. We are the good cop and Israel is the bad cop. We will not stand in the way of whatever it is Israel intends to do should it come to that.

Finally, the taxpaying class will not tolerate another military move. Bush has no credibility absent a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Manhattan. We just ain't gonna buy his chicken little act again.

Joejojoba111
August 14, 2005, 06:44 PM
"Iran a "democracy"?

No. Iran is an Islamic theocracy with a democratic facade applied to calm it's people. Even the recent election of the figurehead president was likely rigged. The real power within the country lies with the mullahs who control the powerful Revolutionary Guard units who dominate the country."

That is so ironic you have to smilie :) Switch Mullahs with Supreme court or Federal Reserve, and Revolutionaru Guard with Federal Bureaucracy (including all agencies) and you described another country. And switch Islamic, too, of course.



"Quote:
Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

You must be a big time lefty. "It's not fair that we've got _____ and they don't. No WONDER they feel inferior. If we just give _____ to them, they'll be our friends!!!!" OK Mr. Rogers, wake up and go back to your neighborhood.

We've had nukes for over 60 years. Thousands of nukes...little ones, big ones. Only used 2 so far. Anybody think that Iran (or any of their friends) would hesitate using one for a second if they could get away with it? Now that they've got little Palestine back, they're close enough to smoke Israel. Giving away that land was a BAD move. Inviting your worst enemy into your house.

We could turn any country over there into an ashtray in 5 minutes. We choose not to. They would if they had the chance. You gotta quit believing that everyone thinks like us and has our values. That's the biggest problem with the left. "If we'd only REASON with them." Can't reason with unreasonable people. I don't hate them, but they hate us simply because we exist."

Only 2 have been used? You might want to re-count bud, here's a quick hint, what's your favorite style of women's swimwear?

Furthermore how many nuclear devices has America 'lost' over the years? How did Israel get their technology in the first place?

And why do they feel threatened? I don't understand either. Just because everyone wants to invade them or blow up their stuff with airstrikes, why would they feel threatened by that? Just because their neighbors on either side have foreign militaries in them, just because Israel has a habit of *technically illegal* surprise airstrikes against other countries in the region at the drop of a hat, because the President of the US has called them 'Evil' and said 'all options are open'. If you were not bothering anyone else, you were miding your own business, and these things happened to you, you know full well you would not see them as reasonable actions and reasonable requests from the international community.

If We were in Iran's place, by your own admission, we would 'Glass' anyone who got in our way!

And furthermore, war is cool and war is fun to watch, but it's not going to be our lazy keyboard-using asses that get smoked 16,000 feet over Tehran, now is it? You're demonstrating remarkably little regard for human life, theirs or ours. And if you consider that to be 'left' of your position then that puts you pretty far right, just about as far right as Mussolini and his party, if only I could remember their names.


And if you like the realpolitik stuff, then consider the benefits from increasing the strength of a regional player in the development of regional conflicts. If it balances power better then it's good for us.


And BTW if anyone really believes anymore that we're fighting a 'war on terror', then you're sure not showing it. Fk finding Bin Laden, Fk those guys flying planes into buildings from Suadi Arabia, we've got the attention spans of 10-year-olds, now show us more footage from bomb-cameras. We don't care if it will obviously create more terrorists who will make our live more hellish, we just want the hollow vanity of a military victory, no matter what the cost.

If it feels good, right now, then let's do it right now. Forget about the furture, we'll worry about getting our next 'fix' later.

SIGarmed
August 14, 2005, 06:46 PM
The US shot it bolt in Iraq. No more military to burn. Doing so would require an increase in boots and that is precisely the opposite of the intentions of the ruling class. It wants to wage war without that blood and flesh thingy.

Iran may appear to be stable but it is anything but. The young generation (something like 1/2 the population) has had it right up to here with the theocratic rulers. Popular dissent is muted but present and growing.

Israel can not and will not tolerate nukes under the control of Iran's mullah's. The rhetoric from Iran is just too hot, too dangerous, and too inflamatory. Israel (and the US for that matter) just assumes as soon as nukes are available they will be used. Neither the US nor Israel can tolerate the idea of a nuclear umbrella held by Iran. The nightmare scenario is a nuclear umbrella held by Iran while various terror groups conduct their mayhem on targets. I believe the US has passed the word to whoever is listening that an WMD attack on the US will be viewed in an unfriendly manner and that our response will be breathtaking, savage, and final. A nuclear umbrella would counter threats of a credible response by the US.

If Bush is rattle the saber, he rattles someone else's. I think he just passed on a word of advice to Iran. We are the good cop and Israel is the bad cop. We will not stand in the way of whatever it is Israel intends to do should it come to that.

Finally, the taxpaying class will not tolerate another military move. Bush has no credibility absent a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Manhattan. We just ain't gonna buy his chicken little act again.

I'm glad you have an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. With all fingers in the world pointing at Iraq NBC programs what would you do?
In a post 9-11 world the question should be could the United States afford not to take action in Iraq?

Nothing easy is ever worth anything.

lodwick
August 14, 2005, 07:51 PM
Only Congress can declare "war."

...and those traitorous jackasses have not been able to do so since WWII. (Which could be a whole other thread on why that blood-bath occurred.)

Smirk is kicking it in Crawford, while American kids, latino hessians, and over-paid "contractors" are dying daily in Iraq...not to even speak of the all the Iraqii civilians that are being killed, or all the DU posioning that will affect everyone in that "theater."

May God help us all.

We need it, badly, and quickly.

longhorngunman
August 14, 2005, 09:20 PM
"We've already lost in Iraq", you silly Liberals only wish. :rolleyes: Tell that too our troops kicking ass on a daily basis and the Iraqi soldiers and policeman that are dying, so that their country can have a future. Democracy takes time and liberals like two-year olds are very impatient. As for Iran, I think Bush was hoping that the masses of Iranians who want change will be able to overthrow the mullahs before they get nukes. I'll tell you this, Israel will not allow Iran to get nukes. They ain't like us, Russia, China, or even North Korea, those mullahs would gladly commit nation suicide if it meant they were the ones that got to destroy Israel or take out L.A., Miami, etc. Among many reasons we went into Iraq, was strategic, too have a landing point to start a change in a culture that hasn't had it in hundreds of years, a plus was taking out a murdering dictator. Also now that we are surrounding Iran from both sides, that my friends is "checkmate". ;)

Marshall
August 14, 2005, 10:22 PM
Well I see that just about everyone but our two local Islamic supporters and terror apologist agree that Iran should not be allowed to possess Nukes.


Oh yea, for energy purposes? Don't they have a 130.8 billion bbl oil reserve and 26.7 trillion cubic meter natural gas reserve? Yea, this is all for the need of nuclear energy. :rolleyes:

Joejojoba111
August 14, 2005, 10:26 PM
"[Iran]ain't like us, Russia, China, or even North Korea, those mullahs would gladly commit nation suicide if it meant they were the ones that got to destroy Israel or take out L.A., Miami, etc."

I understand that they are different, quite different, and they're more religious than the average person over here, and their religion is used by suicide bombers and that does taint it more than a bit. But I don't see evidence why they would act as you say.

Did you know that they had an entire airliner shot down, full of passengers, by an American warship?

If an Iranian suicide bomber got on an American airliner full of families and blew it up, we'd think a lot less of Iran - no matter how they explained it. If the bomber was a marginalized outcast with no relation to the actualy way Iran is, we'd still blame Iran. But they didn't respond by attacking the ship, they took it. And you can bet they bitched a lot, and they won't forget it easily, but they did not act in the irrational manner you suggest. It is really evidence that helps explain Why they feel as they do, and also helps show they are not an irrational suicide state.

And combine this with the other grievances, like previously mentioned hundreds of thousands of dead from chemical weapons that America gave Iraq, out of spite, to use against Iran.

And then the supply of Israel with nuclear weapons, and the denial of anyone else to have them, you have to know this is going to really piss them off. But it doesn't make them a suicide state, it makes them a pissed-off state that has been attacked with chemical weapons and is being over-flown by F-16s and has a constitution and follows their constitution, but knows they will be attacked and overthrown if they let their guard down.


If we really want to take out Iran it will keep, they won't be a threat to us - ever, almost. Why not finish the war on drugs and the war on terrorism and the war on the constitution first, and Then worry about Iran? Everyone knows that dirty bombs are the real threat, not terrorists with suitcase nukes, anyway. They're a thousand times more likely to be acquired, they're just as deadly, almost (less people die in the blast, but they die from breathing in fallout so same difference). And well that's that. So the terrorists are the threat, Iran won't be giving them nukes, let's get the terrorists and not Iran. We can always get Iran later, but let's cool off and think cooly first.

redneck2
August 14, 2005, 11:03 PM
if a guy will strap dynamite to himself to blow up 3 Jews, Americans, or just people that disagree with him, I wonder why he wouldn't use a nuke instead??? Could take out 300,000 instead of just 3.

If we really want to take out Iran it will keep, they won't be a threat to us - ever, almost. Why not finish the war on drugs and the war on terrorism and the war on the constitution first, and Then worry about Iran?

You gotta be kidding. This comes from the same guys that are whining because Bush isn't doing anything about N Korea. Ounce of prevention and all that....

Remember, it was your buddy Clinton that sold nukes to N Korea for under the table campaign contributions at the Buddhist temple

kbr80
August 14, 2005, 11:23 PM
Going after Iran is a whole nother animal that what we are doing in Iraq. Iran can throw some things at us that Iraq could only dream about.

Joejojoba111
August 15, 2005, 12:13 AM
"Remember, it was your buddy Clinton that sold nukes to N Korea for under the table campaign contributions at the Buddhist temple"

He's not my buddy, and I wasn't aware of this anyway.

And I think I figured it out. Most people are afraid that the stuff we do to other countries is going to happen to us! That's why I see stuff like "They aren't normal, they don't think like us." and "They'll give the weapons to terrorists to use against us." and "They'll use their weapons against anyone within range as soon as they get them."

I think I cracked the case! We're attributing OUR worst traits to others, instead of doing some quite reflection and admitting that what we fear the most is actually ourselves! We gave WMDs to terrorists to use against Iran, We use WMDs as soon as we develop them on Japan or Vietnam, We use unconventional means, which could be called terrorist, to train guerilla armies and to forment political upheavel behind countries borders. It's US you're afraid of!

Back to realpolitik - you don't have to be afraid of us, well ok in a domestic view you do have to, but internationally China and Russia are the only ones on the level to put our teachings to work. And we've maneuvered wisely so that this won't happen against us for a good while. And in all seriousness, the more the government cracks down on our freedom the stronger our country becomes, internationally. The more centralized the control of domestic information is, the more nationalistic and gullible the populace is, the more other countries will fear and respect us. So there's really little to worry about in the short or medium term. And if you worry about terrorism, don't, because the actual odds of being injured are miniscule, and every attack simply makes the country stronger in the international community. It becomes less fun to live in, but if stong is what you like then you have to like what we're getting.

fallingblock
August 15, 2005, 12:43 AM
You're spinning so fast that you're getting dizzy! :eek:

In keeping with the binomial of your namesake, Simmondsia chinensis,
you appear to be confused as to your true nativity. :D

*********************************************************
Jojoba has been assigned the name Simmondsia chinensis by the botanical world. The name however comes about by an error. Link, a botanist, traveled around the world collecting seeds and plants to catalog and describe. By mistake he got the seeds of the jojoba plant mixed up with seeds that he had collected in China hence the chinensis. International rules of nomenclature state that a plant once given a name is stuck with it. Jojoba did not occur in China naturally."
http://www.armchair.com/warp/jojoba1.html
*********************************************************

My guess is that "W" is (correctly) utilizing the U.S. 'checkmate' of Iran to push Iran away from developing nuclear weaponry - despite the recent and, I suspect, temporary political success of the hard-liners in Iran. If the U.S. can facilitate the dissent of that large part of Iranian society which is fed-up with hardline Islamic theocracy without actually using military force in the process, all the better.

Israel will certainly be happy to do the deed of closing down Iran's capability if needed.

If Iran's hardliners prove to be obtuse, things will be happening sooner rather than later.

As Art notes, the rest of the world is very glad to have Uncle Sugar footing the bill to provide stability in their energy supply.

We surely do live in interesting times.

David
August 15, 2005, 12:57 AM
Another very interesting piece of the "Iran puzzle" ... Remember that, just a few days ago, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that Iran was sneaking weapons into Iraq!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16220430%255E2703,00.html

US accuses Iran of smuggling weapons into Iraq
A correspondent in Baghdad
11aug05

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused Tehran of smuggling weapons into Iraq, after US intelligence reports claimed a cache of bombs found in the country's north had come from Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

"It is true that weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"It's a problem for the Iraqi Government. It's a problem for the coalition forces. It's a problem for the international community. And ultimately, it's a problem for Iran."

The US military believes a hidden store of manufactured bombs seized in Iraq about two weeks ago was smuggled into the country by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. If the intelligence is correct, it would suggest the Revolutionary Guard is moving into a conflict that for the past year has been dominated by Sunnis rather than Shi'ites.

The claim came as The New York Times reported that armed men had entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm and deposed the city's mayor, installing in his place a member of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite militia.

The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, called the move a municipal coup d'etat. He added that he had gone into hiding for fear of his life.

"This is the new Iraq," said Mr Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."

The group that ousted him insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Iraq's capital city and that Mr Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organisation, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The militia has been credited with keeping the peace in predominantly areas in southern Iraq, but also accused of abuses such as forcing women to wear the veils demanded by conservative Shi'ite religious law.

US officials said the Iranian weapons haul was significant because it indicated manufactured bombs were being introduced in a conflict that had seen widespread use of "improvised explosive devices" by insurgents.

Last week, US soldiers discovered dozens of recently manufactured "shaped" charges smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran. The bombs focus the force of an explosion to blast through even the heavy armour on an M-1 tank. They were first reported to be in Iraq several months ago, amid an escalation in the size and deadliness of the bombs devised by insurgents.

Triple-stacked anti-tank mines were reported to have been used in an explosion last week that flipped over a US armoured amphibious assault vehicle, killing 14 marines and an interpreter in one of the biggest single losses of the war.

US military officials estimate that 70per cent of US casualties stem from improvised bombs.

Mr Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials have often attacked Syria for allowing Iraqi insurgents to move foreign fighters, money and arms across its borders.

They had been more reserved about Iran, whose Shi'ite regime has been viewed as more closely aligned to Iraq's Shi'ite majority than to an insurgency that has been drawn mainly from the country's Sunni minority.

"It's a big border and unhelpful for Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to be crossing the border," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"The people in that region want this situation stabilised with exception of Iran and Syria."

US commanders have warned of a surge in insurgent violence in the coming weeks as Iraqis draft and vote on a constitution, and then hold elections for a new government in December.

******

:uhoh: :scrutiny: :uhoh:

Sindawe
August 15, 2005, 01:52 AM
So, do we wait until they shoot up a radio outpost before we attack? Or perhaps shooting up one of our ships in gulf will suffice, again.Well I see that just about everyone but our two local Islamic supporters and terror apologist agree that Iran should not be allowed to possess Nukes. Shaka, when the walls fell... :banghead:
Oh yea, for energy purposes? Don't they have a 130.8 billion bbl oil reserve and 26.7 trillion cubic meter natural gas reserve? Yea, this is all for the need of nuclear energy. So, your sitting on lots of what the rest of the world wants, needs and will go to war for. Which paths makes sense to you.

1. Develop the tech to avoid burning that desired resource youself, but instead find other sources of energy and sell the high value product on the world market. Thereby devoloping the society and intrastucture that will enable your consituency to live as they chose.

OR

2. Burn the high value product ourself, and then when it runs out, you're back to being a nomadic & agrarian nation that no one pays any heed too. And your population is in revolt due the nose dive their standard of living has taken.

SIGarmed
August 15, 2005, 02:11 AM
You do know that those reactors and things do have other uses right?
Israel can have nukes as a "defensive measure" but Iran can't?

Invading Iran would be very impractical since the Iraq war's costing a packet already. Sure you could attack their facilities and destroy all their stuff and generally wreck a democratic country but why bother?

Can anyone fill me on the difference between "strategic" and "tactical" use of nuclear weapons?

God that's a lot of questions.

That is flawed reasoning. There is no moral equivalence between Israel a westernized nation and Iran. Allowing Iran have the ability to create nuclear weapons on demand is suicide and only the most naive would believe Iran.

Gary H
August 15, 2005, 03:27 AM
Iran can be brought to its knees without an American setting a boot on their soil. Any nuclear facilities can be obliterated by cruise missles from hundreds of miles away.

No and NO

Nuclear facilities are mostly shielded by tons of cement and dirt. I suspect that we don't know where all of them are hidden.

You don't bring radical Muslims to their knees. You kill them, or they eventually strike back.

Who cares if Iran has a right to anything. They give up their right when, for the last twenty years, they have exported terrorism. Survival comes first, honoring their supposed rights comes just before you give up your rights. They must earn their "right".

We must delay their nuclear weapons program and support the overthrow of the present government. It is the Iranian government and the radicals in Iran that threaten us and not the general public.

How do you attack the bad guys and not polarize the millions of pro-American Iranians?

Lone_Gunman
August 15, 2005, 11:33 AM
"It is true that weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq," Mr Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration really are not a very reliable source when it comes to guessing about weapons in Iraq, though, are they?

That said, we can't let Iran develop nuclear weapons.

Marshall
August 15, 2005, 01:44 PM
So, your sitting on lots of what the rest of the world wants, needs and will go to war for. Which paths makes sense to you.
The path of not exporting terror thus making yourself the reason the free world doesn't want you to have nukes. Yea, that would do it.
Boy, funny how this option escaped your mind. :rolleyes:

As I said before, terror apologist and sympathizer.

Sindawe
August 15, 2005, 02:09 PM
Marshall: I would point out to you house rule number four.

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
About your claim that I'm a "terror apologist and sympathizer". Please be kind enough to provide quotes where I've expresses support for terrorists, or made apologies for them or for their actions.

Back on topic: As I said before, Iran as informed the IAEA that they are going to resume enriching uranium, and that the IAEA needs to take the steps to put monitors in place to observe the enrichment activities. All these actions are the steps that are supposed to happen under the NPT. Iran is playing by the rules they agreed to, and rules the U.S. stated it would respect and observe. If the U.S. feels it is no longer bound by the NPT, why should any OTHER nation feel bound by it?

As for Iran's supposed Nuclear Weapons program, where is it? What evidence is there of such, other than the assertions coming out of the Bush Administration?

Marshall
August 15, 2005, 02:19 PM
They Don't Get To Play By The Rules Because They Break The Others, They're Terrorist, They Support Terrorist And If You Support Them, You Support Terrorist, At Least In My Books. That's Not Name Calling, It's Pointing Out What I Believe Your Position To Be By Defending A Terrorist State In The Dissuasion Of Them Having Nuclear Weapons.

Sindawe
August 15, 2005, 03:32 PM
Your beliefs are in error, as is your logic. But I think you know that, given the increasingly shrill tone you are using.

Marshall
August 15, 2005, 03:45 PM
We'll just watch your posts on the subject and others like it and see how far away I am from the truth. I hope I am wrong but, based on this diatribe and others I have read, I won't hold my breath.

Joejojoba111
August 15, 2005, 06:09 PM
"What evidence is there of such, other than the assertions coming out of the Bush Administration?"

There is evidence, circumstantial evidence, that they will make weapons. And I think it's a safe guess to say they will when they can.

But the fact is that this technology is OLD, and it was our best buddy Pakistan that exported all the centrifuge designs and whatnot. Hey, btw, why aren't we sending air-strikes against Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Anyone? We planned for first-strikes against the entier Soviet Bloc, you think we can't waste a couple dozen missiles? Pakistan is Muslim, they have a worse government than IRan (farcical constitution, farcical democracy, hotbed for terrorists) and they have a CLEAR track record of going to war for little or no reason! Why not attack Pakistan?!!??!

"HElloo..............hellooooo...hellllooooooooooo"

All the horrible aspects that are attributed to Iran, they are fake, but if you look at Pakistan they actually have them all! Iran only defended themselves against Iraqi agression, Pakistan fights whenever they get an inkling they might win!

And as for Iran having oil, and that influencing the equation, I'd like to input a new aspect to the equation. The Euro. What did Iraq trade oil for? Euros. What does Iran trade oil for? Euros. Not dollars. And if Iran does this it weakens the American dollar dramatically, and strengthens the Euro.

So guess what, Europe, where they print the Euro, might not like losing the second country that uses their money for oil trading. I think they might be slightly against a war with Iran, for that reason.

fallingblock
August 15, 2005, 10:04 PM
"Hey, btw, why aren't we sending air-strikes against Pakistan's nuclear weapons?"
*********************************************************

For one thing, the government of Pakistan is co-operating (somewhat grudgingly, perhaps) with the U.S. at the moment.

For another, Pakistan is neatly and completely countermatched by India.
Any overt aggression against India (or weakness perceived by India) and Pakistan will be busier than a one-armed paperhanger. ;)


*********************************************************
"Pakistan fights whenever they get an inkling they might win!"
*********************************************************

But not, so far, against the U.S.
At least not the Pakistani government,
which is cooperating with the U.S. for various reasons.

Unlike Iran, where the government is composed of elements with systemic hatred for the U.S. and western democracy in general. Hatred which burns in the culture of the "revolutionary guard" and the clerics. The sort of hatred which prudence suggests must be denied possession of the means to manufacture nuclear weaponry.


*********************************************************
"So guess what, Europe, where they print the Euro, might not like losing the second country that uses their money for oil trading. I think they might be slightly against a war with Iran, for that reason."
*********************************************************

Europe would be even more against the terrorist detonation of nukes locally, provided by Iran, as a means of influencing their national politics. ;)

No doubt the Europeans will be happy to have the Iranian 'crisis' solved one way or another. They perhaps also long for the security of an oil supply controlled by the free market instead of Islamic fanatics.

Taurus 66
August 15, 2005, 10:20 PM
Is IRAN Next for the US Military???

If we still have some soldiers standing when we finally pull out of Iraq, of course we should then send our troops over to Iran ... kill off those remaining. And any soldier with at least one arm and one leg left gets to choose whether he can go on to fight in either N. Korea or Syria after Iran, because he will have earned that right. :rolleyes:

Why is it all nations look to the US to fight the world's battles?! Too many of our troops are dying and we're not getting enough UN support. These wars will kill us financially you know. Wars cost lots of money. I believe all these nations are wanting to bankrupt us.

Joejojoba111
August 16, 2005, 12:43 AM
""Pakistan fights whenever they get an inkling they might win!"
*********************************************************

But not, so far, against the U.S.
At least not the Pakistani government,
which is cooperating with the U.S. for various reasons."

I have to point out, that perhaps I seem very frustrated in this discussion, but it's because the topic is SO freaking deep. I'm not talking philosophical deep, I'm talking plot twists and turns and affected actors and effects deep.

For instance, all this talk about 'keeping the region secure'. Assuming that the argument that Iraq is now more secure, and the porous borders on every side of it are now more secure, we still have other Contradictory actions that make the region less secure.

Want one subtle reason why Pakistan doesn't hate us, yet? Because we just GAVE, I repeat - Gave - them almost a Billion dollar's worth of advanced military weaponry, fighter-bomber aircraft, tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles, all sorts of stuff to make them more likely to attack India again. Scratch that, GUARANTEED to attack India again. And If America says the tinyiest little negative thing about it then Pakistan will suddenly show it's true colors and you'll see them all burning US flags in the streets, and shoutins about infidels too, like we all really know they feel. We talk about a population that is on the breaking point of an uprising, that's Pakistan! The people DOn't like their government that makes them best buddies with America, they hate it, it takes a police-state to keep everyone in-line.


And again, if T's use a nuclear bomb it will be dirty, it's just so highly unlikely that they would put all their eggs in one basket with a fission device, when they could, for the same effort, produce a dozen or more contamination devices, and ship and assemble and place the contamination devices more easily. Besides, the only 'Al Qeuda' style dramatic and devastating use for a fission bomb would be the refinery capacity. Urban centers are by their nature resistant to damage from small nuclear explosions. The buildings act on the explosion like a muzzle suppressor does on a muzzle blast. The devastated area would not be that great, almost the same area could be devastated by a dirty bomb far more easily.

fallingblock
August 16, 2005, 06:01 AM
"the topic is SO freaking deep. I'm not talking philosophical deep, I'm talking plot twists and turns and affected actors and effects deep."
*********************************************************

Anything happening in that part of the world has more plots and undercurrents than a court in 16th Century Italy! :)


*********************************************************
"Want one subtle reason why Pakistan doesn't hate us, yet? Because we just GAVE, I repeat - Gave - them almost a Billion dollar's worth of advanced military weaponry, fighter-bomber aircraft, tandem-warhead anti-tank missiles, all sorts of stuff to make them more likely to attack India again. Scratch that, GUARANTEED to attack India again."
*********************************************************


Yes, that is how the game is played. Pakistan wouldn't WIN against India, though. ;)


*********************************************************
"The people DOn't like their government that makes them best buddies with America, they hate it, it takes a police-state to keep everyone in-line."
*********************************************************


Absolutely. Pervez Musharraf is running a tight ship there at the moment. While he lasts.


*********************************************************
"Urban centers are by their nature resistant to damage from small nuclear explosions. The buildings act on the explosion like a muzzle suppressor does on a muzzle blast. The devastated area would not be that great, almost the same area could be devastated by a dirty bomb far more easily."
*********************************************************


Neither would a 'dirty bomb' actually cause much devastation. The 'terror factor' of T's with a fission device would make for some very compliant or at least some highly excited victim governments, I'd guess. :uhoh:


So, Joe, how would you "secure the area"?

280PLUS
August 16, 2005, 07:04 AM
I met a world reknown Iranian guitarist somewhere right around the time we invaded Iraq. This gentleman has had years of contact with the intellectual elite in Iran. He is an outstanding individual. His words to me on the subject of a U.S. war with Iran were to the effect of, "Noone in Iran wants a war with the U.S.". That pretty much exact but it was a while ago.

I took him as being very sincere in his statement. I felt he was speaking for the PEOPLE of Iraq and not it's Government. I found those words reassuring. They're not ALL bad.

That has been playing on my mind since the start of this thread so I thought I'd include it.

MasterPiece Arms.com
August 16, 2005, 07:56 AM
What's interesting about americans these days, is that they KNOW that their government has secret agendas, lies pathologically to further those agendas, and has moved in the direction of tyranny and globalism since the 1933 federal bankruptcy and going into receivership to the international bankers.

YET, if one speaks the above things, a conditioned public has been well trained to call that person a "conspiracy theorist" and other such twaddle and avoidance tactics.

I say this because we all know that George Bush is a pathological liar just like Klinton, just like Daddy Bush, just like Carter, just like Ford, just like Nixon, just like L.B.J., and especially, just like F.D.R. People who support G.W. Bush do so in the name of "conservatism" which has lost all meaning, and they also do it in the name of "the democrat is worse" which is NOT a principled position at all. I would rather have a dem president and a republican congress constantly at war with him. GRIDLOCK IS THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR now. What we have now with "patriot act" parts I, II, III, IV etc being passed with no opposition whatsoever, is the most dangerous position possible.

We all have known in the backs of our minds for some time that the powers behind the scenes, i.e. Bush's globalist handlers, desire to attack MORE nations and are scheming to do so. We're all waiting around just to find out who is next.

Based on the upshifting in the propaganda campaign (with predictable help from an always compliant leftist/globalist friendly, i.e. tacitly controlled, media), it DOES appear that the "whose next" question has been answered, and it's Iran.

The fact that the administration dares to use phrases like "all options are on the table" is a significant change from the bold faced lie that Bush spoke just a few months before the Iraq invasion. Yea, remember that? Remember when Bush actually said (it's burned into my mind because it was so obviously a lie, even at the time) "There are no war plans on my desk."

Based on principle, anyone who supports this administration in any way after such an obvious and egregious lie, is COMPLICIT in the war on truth and the constitution :fire: .

Sadly, basically the only americans who see this are the leftists, who are heavily concentrated in New York and California, and also, who oppose this evil administration FOR THE WRONG REASONS. They simply just want a leftist democrat leading us into the globalists agenda instead of an anti privacy, [allegedly] anti abortion, socialist republican.

Here's just a tiny reminder of what the propaganda machine has put out recently to prepare compliant republicans for an invasion of Iran:

1. Remember the obious dis-information that was recently intentionally leaked to Joseph Farah's World Net Daily, where it was alleged that Iran was planning an "EMP strike which could incapacitate the entire nation?" The powers that be KNOW that it's the so called "conservatives" that they need to mentally prepare to accept what's coming, so they "leaked" that B.S. to world net daily to scare his 99% republican readership into almost begging Bush to attack Iran. By the way, in case you didn't already know, Iran would need gigantic technological additions to it's military to be able to get so much as ONE high altitude atomic burst to pull off an EMP attack, let alone the MULTIPLE ones needed to cause the catastrophic result that was EVERYWHERE on world net daily.com AND world net daily radio for weeks. It was grade A USDA prime dis-information meant to get the Bush loyalists ready to accept what's coming.

2. The all too convenient stories that suddenly appeared in the controlled mainstream media stretching the truth (to say the least) subtly implying that Iran was helping the insurgents. I have no doubt that Iranians by the thousands have entered Iraq to fight the U.S., but this has been known for years and it's HARDLY just Iranians who have come to Iraq to fight the U.S. The administration knows that too, so the sudden coordinated appearance of this in the media in this way is highly suspect.

3. The nuclear "crisis" has currently been shaped into a trigger event. If Iran removes those cameras in their nuclear facilities for example, it could be "game on" any day.

The proper question is "Is Iran Next For The [globalists who control] The US Military?"

If Klinton had said this, it would've been called (rightly so) a "slick willy whopper": US President George Bush today warned that “all options are on the table” if Iran refuses to comply with international demands to halt its nuclear programme.

Let's play 'can you spot the lie.' That statement by Bush is a slickly crafted half truth. Those "international demands" that Bush is talking about refer to the building of a nuclear bomb [which Iran is not doing, unlike North Korea, which openly said 'screw you we're building one' and DID]. There are no "international demands" that Iran stop any use of nuclear materials. Iran is legally free in every way to operate and build nuclear reactors and reprocess uranium, and what's worse is the president KNOWS this. Clearly, his handlers want to plant in people's minds that Iran is somehow 'not allowed' to have a "nuclear programme." It looks like they want the public to ASSUME that Iran is somehow voilating complicated 'international law' by having nuclear materials or a plant that COULD be used to make plutonium. That of course, is B.S. Bush intentionally did not say "nuclcear BOMB program" he just said "nuclear programme" knowing full well what people would assume [Jeez, I'm still meeting people occationally who believe that Iraqis helped fly the planes into the world trade center :banghead: ].

This is the equivalent of BATFE saying to you "stop your machine gun program mr Jones or else" simply because you own some AK full auto fire control parts which are completely LEGAL. Bush knows that Iran has done nothing illegal but he's playing the "constructive possession" angle that the BATFE pulls when it wants to nail someone to pad it's conviction numbers. The only difference, is that Iran has NOT even made a technical violation like the BATFE's constructive possession B.S. So actually, Bush is doing the equivalent of the BATFE saying "Mr Smith, we know you have an AR, and we know you have a metal shop. Since you COULD make a drop in auto sear and some M-16 fire control parts, we're going to raid your house if you don't immediately drop your 'machine gun' program."

Unfortunately, juries today are uninformed and DANGEROUSLY compliant with evil like that, just like the current crop of republicans are. Very sad.

Marshall
August 16, 2005, 01:55 PM
Bottom line, I don't want Iran to have Nukes, period. Makes no difference what Bush or anyone else says, I don't want them too. Kind of shoots that whole compliancy theory in the butt.

Joejojoba111
August 16, 2005, 05:37 PM
"So, Joe, how would you "secure the area"?"

Laissez-faire. It's been well-known what will happen to oil and prices for decades, the 2040 year is probably obsolete now, but it was understood that there would be no practical crude left by 2040. Now it is probably much sooner, as the industrialization of Asia is faster than imagined possible. We know, and knew, where we were going with oil, and instead of seeking to alter consumption patterns we left them to continue their accelerating increase. There is no reason to expect a delay in sky-rocketing oil prices will do us any good. All evidence shows that the more time we have the deeper the hole we will dig!!! All the time in the world and we didn't do anything. 1970's oil-crisis' and we went right back to our old ways. Delaying the inevitable is pointless, and our behavior shows that the greater the delay the greater the suffering we will have later.

Do I want to pay more for gasoline tomorrow? No, of course not. But it's going to happen, and I and every other idiot who refuses to learn the most simple of lessons simply must be hurt before we alter our behaviors. Pavlov's dogs learned faster than us.


"Neither would a 'dirty bomb' actually cause much devastation. The 'terror factor' of T's with a fission device would make for some very compliant or at least some highly excited victim governments, I'd guess."

Phyisical damage, the difference would be subtle. A dirty bomb you'd want to airburst, maybe from a hot-air balloon or light aircraft. This would spread the contaminants over the greatest area. A fission bomb airbursted would maximize the overpressure blast area, and the intense immediate radiation effects, but long-term property damage would be far less. Ground-level explosion of that same bomb, though, would have the limited blast and initial radiation effects (by buildings) but would stir up a bunch of now-irradiated dust and make fallout, which would have long-term consequences far greater than blasted building faces. So the only uses for ground-level explosions of nuclear bombs is to A)destroy really hardened targets B)create much more fallout. And AL-Q won't be attacking any bunkers, so they won't use a nuclear bomb at ground level when a dirty-bomb is so easy to make transport and use, and can actually have superior results in contaminating areas.

Of course the airburst over an area that refines oil, that would still be pretty harmful on a large scale, knocking out 10% of refining capacity would have exponential efffects. And it would be sort of symbolic, which AL-Q likes, but it's just too complicated, imo. The biggest payoff is many dirty bombs, which are simple and crude and easy and could 'devastate' not with overpressure, but through depopulation the urban centers of several major cities in one co-ordinated and timed attack. Components - 5 hot-air balloons, 5 100lb explosive charges, 5 ground-up fuel rods and some other good media, 5 people with wrist-watches, umm that's all folks. Detonate upwind from city center when the second-hand tells you to. And any of these things could be brought across the Mexican border with ease.

fallingblock
August 18, 2005, 01:27 AM
"The biggest payoff is many dirty bombs, which are simple and crude and easy and could 'devastate' not with overpressure, but through depopulation the urban centers of several major cities in one co-ordinated and timed attack. Components - 5 hot-air balloons, 5 100lb explosive charges, 5 ground-up fuel rods and some other good media, 5 people with wrist-watches, umm that's all folks. Detonate upwind from city center when the second-hand tells you to. And any of these things could be brought across the Mexican border with ease."
*********************************************************

Ah, well. :(

One way or another, we ought to disrupt the terrorists whenever and wherever possible.


But MasterPiece:
*********************************************************
"Based on principle, anyone who supports this administration in any way after such an obvious and egregious lie, is COMPLICIT in the war on truth and the constitution ."
*********************************************************


As you note, the other political choices are even worse. :eek:

Joejojoba111
August 18, 2005, 01:49 AM
"One way or another, we ought to disrupt the terrorists whenever and wherever possible."

we should also secure the border so no (more) terrorist material crosses with complete ease. We should also re-instate civil defence preparedness lessons, revamped for the slightly different situation. (even simple advice like 'don't be downwind from any sort of attack')

Fact is we aren't doing anything to stop terrorists, fact is that if we sit back and believe that the FBI is catching them as we sleep we are deloded - for we now know full well how hopelessly incopetent they honestly are. How unlikely the system really is to stop an attack. And while we lie prostrate, instead of keeping a low profile we engender to infuriate as many fanatical muslim countries as possible?

In a normal world we'd be securing the country, simply and quickly re-instate proven structures for civil defence, light a fire under the alphabet agencies colelctive asses because asking them to just do their jobs is like herding cats, and while we are unsecure we would swallow our pride a little and try not to deliberately provoke attacks.

Right now we're hopelessly vulnerable, the gov't knows it, and secure with this knowledge they take action after action which can lead only to incurring more terrorist attacks. And it's not stupidity or negligence, terrorist attacks are actually good for the government, as in beneficial to them.

There's nothing wrong with a good offence, but it cannot replace the lack of a most rudimentary defence.

And then there's the track record which suggests that if we did attack Iran the terrorists would avoid capture and then dramatically increase in strength, while we topple the government.


And about the dirty bombs, I didn't really think it through. Hot air balloon might be a poor choice for a platform because of maneuverability.

DRZinn
August 18, 2005, 09:43 PM
Stage a mock attack as described above, originating in Mexico and ending over LA with a large banner reading BOOM unfurled from a hot-air ballon. The whole thing videotaped beginning to end (or all the relevant parts anyway, including the border crossing). Then send it to all the news outlets you can think of. It'll play - and it'll make the point.

I'd do it myself if I could afford to take the time off from work and school.

fallingblock
August 18, 2005, 11:33 PM
"We should also re-instate civil defence preparedness lessons..."
*********************************************************


In elementary school back in Indiana.

"Duck and Cover" :D

Under the desk, face away from the window.


*********************************************************
"There's nothing wrong with a good offence, but it cannot replace the lack of a most rudimentary defence."
*********************************************************


Problem is, a good defence seldom if ever WINS a confrontation. The assailant simply continues aggression elsewhere.

I think a balanced approach is the answer.

Take out Iran's nuke weapon capability while militarily isolating the hardline Iranian goverment. Let the Iranians fix their problem with a bit of help when needed. :)

fallingblock
August 18, 2005, 11:38 PM
"We should also re-instate civil defence preparedness lessons..."
*********************************************************


In elementary school back in Indiana.

"Duck and Cover" :D

Under the desk, face away from the window.


*********************************************************
"There's nothing wrong with a good offence, but it cannot replace the lack of a most rudimentary defence."
*********************************************************


Problem is, defence seldom if ever resolves the issue.

The assailant simply continues aggression elsewhere.

I think a balanced approach is the answer.

Take out Iran's nuke weapon capability while militarily isolating the hardline Iranian goverment. Let the Iranians fix their problem with a bit of help when needed. :)


That's probably a good idea, Doc:
*********************************************************
"originating in Mexico and ending over LA with a large banner reading BOOM unfurled from a hot-air ballon"
*********************************************************


But anonymity would be wise! ;)

Joejojoba111
August 18, 2005, 11:58 PM
"Stage a mock attack as described above, originating in Mexico and ending over LA with a large banner reading BOOM unfurled from a hot-air ballon. The whole thing videotaped beginning to end (or all the relevant parts anyway, including the border crossing). Then send it to all the news outlets you can think of. It'll play - and it'll make the point."

It'll make the point that you're a deranged lunatic, man oh man you should imagine what the news footage of you would look like, helicopters circling you, police on megaphones shouting, you being roughly handled for the "perp walk" as you're taken away for violating airspace or disturbing the peace or whatever. Fk maybe they charge you with terrorism, you tried to alter American policy through promoting fear, right? I read the new definition of terrorism, and that's one of the descriptions.

Also, believe it or not, the 'duck and cover' stuff worked. The most noticeable problems after even 1 nuclear weapon is detonated would be those who are alive but wounded. There's a lot of people with cuts and broken bones, that sort of stuff. But that's easy to handle. The problem is that even a small explosion will cause something like 50,000 severe burn cases, and all the burn units in the entire USA put together can't handle 1/100th of that. So duck and cover or else you will become blister-boy. And I think that they were trying to make it instinctual, so people don't look at the flash and say 'hmm I should duck', but so that people would duck instantaneously.


"
Problem is, defence seldom if ever resolves the issue.
The assailant simply continues aggression elsewhere.
I think a balanced approach is the answer.
Take out Iran's nuke weapon capability while militarily isolating the hardline Iranian goverment. Let the Iranians fix their problem with a bit of help when needed."

I always figure that you need somewhere to launch your offensive from. Before you plan an offence you need a secure home-base.

As for Iran, I have this feeling that's counter-intuitive. See, Iraq never launched terrorist attacks, because those are 'the weapon of the weak'. Iraq had a big army, a proud army. Now they (the ones who lost the fight) are back to the weapons of the weak, again. Well, if Iran has it's conventional force taken away, they'll probably just end up doing what every other group has always done, resort to the weapons of the weak. IOW Iraq was safer - less of a threat when they were spending money on T72s and Mig-25s, and maybe this theory could be applied to Iran somehow. Not sure how, though, but perhaps bribery, offering them defensive technology, as nuclear weapons are the ultimate defence. (hey, want some new air-defence technology? Then dismantle your program and we'll hook you up with the ability to make Patriots...).

pittspilot
August 19, 2005, 01:29 AM
Back on topic: As I said before, Iran as informed the IAEA that they are going to resume enriching uranium, and that the IAEA needs to take the steps to put monitors in place to observe the enrichment activities. All these actions are the steps that are supposed to happen under the NPT. Iran is playing by the rules they agreed to, and rules the U.S. stated it would respect and observe. If the U.S. feels it is no longer bound by the NPT, why should any OTHER nation feel bound by it?

As for Iran's supposed Nuclear Weapons program, where is it? What evidence is there of such, other than the assertions coming out of the Bush Administration?

You see the trouble is that while you buy the English version, I watch what the Iranian government says within its borders

Example (http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=805)

Was this guy just saying this for a laugh?

The simple fact is that Iran is going for nuclear weapons. They have zero reason for peaceful nuclear power. Why would they with the natural gas reserves they have? Natural gas is a much cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy source then nuclear.

And look at this from the Iranian point of view. They have the Yanks next door. The Americans wacked Saddam in a little over a month, something they never were able to pull off, while suffering horrendous casualties on their side. The Mullahs surely do not want a ????e majoritarian democracy right next to them, considering the unhappiness of their population. The only way to grab power back is to become nuclear capable. It makes complete sense.

And so does the manner in which they are going about it. They need time. So they are getting it by negotiating with the Europeans who have no other choice but to negotiate since they do not have a military option.

Iran is a hellish problem. There is no way that the Israeli's can tolerate a nuclear Iran. One of the most powerful politicians in Iran was recently publicly speculating that wacking the Jewish nation was well worth a few hundred thousand muslim casualties. That kind of talk makes me nervous. But what can the Israeli's do?

We choose to ignore this problem when it first became plainly apparent in 1979. They kicked us in the shins in Beiruit, and have done some other crappy stuff. We choose to ignore the threat, and now it has become such a problem that there is a stiff price to pay to fix the problem.

Sindawe
August 19, 2005, 03:19 AM
Very interesting. However, the video clips and transcripts there are excerpts, NOT the entirety of the broadcast. That makes it rather difficult to make an objective determination of intent of Mr. Musavian's in his statements. I'd like to see the ENTIRE transcript.

I did some digging on MEMRI, and found the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel". I'm still looking for that one - Sin

That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives.

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Relevant to Col Carmon, there is this....

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=4047

I just checked my campus mail and found a letter in it from Colonel Yigal Carmon, late of Israeli military intelligence, now an official at the Middle East Media Research Organization, or MEMRI. He threatened me with a lawsuit over blog comments I made at Informed Comment. This technique of the SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, has already been pioneered by polluting industries against environmental activists, and now the pro-Likud lobby in the U.S. has apparently decided to try it out against people like me.
Attempting to stiffle dissenting opion via the threat of a lawsuit is not really "cricket", now is it? 'Specially when that one's organization's state aim is to..The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. MEMRI's headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in Berlin, London, and Jerusalem, where MEMRI also maintains its Media Center. MEMRI research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian.Source: http://www.memri.org/aboutus.html

But thanks for the link to MEMRI, it is always good to have more than one perspective on world issues.

DRZinn
August 19, 2005, 12:39 PM
It'll make the point that you're a deranged lunatic, man oh man you should imagine what the news footage of you would look like, helicopters circling you, police on megaphones shouting, you being roughly handled for the "perp walk" as you're taken away for violating airspace or disturbing the peace or whatever. Fk maybe they charge you with terrorism, you tried to alter American policy through promoting fear, right? I read the new definition of terrorism, and that's one of the descriptions.Unbunch your panties, joe, and pay attention. A hot-air balloon is a perfectly normal thing. No-one would even notice. No-one would even know it had been done until the videotape surfaced.

pittspilot
August 19, 2005, 02:17 PM
I notice that you completely duck my other points trying to attack the character of the Memri site.

Classical Ad Hominem.

Try to address the points in my argument.

Sindawe
August 19, 2005, 02:45 PM
Was this guy just saying this for a laugh? Not possible to make an objective determination with quotes taken out of context.The simple fact is that Iran is going for nuclear weapons. What evidence is there of this aside from the quotes from MEMRI and Iran's activities that are in line with the NPT?They have zero reason for peaceful nuclear power. How about a source of electrical power that does not burn up a commodity that the West greatly needs, values and will pay top Dollar/Euro for?And so does the manner in which they are going about it. They need time. So they are getting it by negotiating with the Europeans who have no other choice but to negotiate since they do not have a military option Again, they are negotiating to preserve the right to peacefull, self sufficient nuclear uses which they are entitled to.One of the most powerful politicians in Iran was recently publicly speculating that wacking the Jewish nation was well worth a few hundred thousand muslim casualties. Citation? Not that I doubt that some hothead has said such, but then all nation have hotheads.

Show me some concrete evidence that Iran is working to build nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT, and I'll have no problem with sanctions from the IAEA, the UN and the rest of the planet. Wild theories from an administration that has shown itself to be untrustworthy (where are the WMD that Iraq supposedly had?) and more than willing to ignore its charter to serve the ends of a few, do not suffice. The IAEA (the folks in charge of verifying adherence to the NPT) have found no evidence of such. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/01/iran.nuclear/

If you enjoyed reading about "Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!