Iran again

Iran Insists Enrichment Goal Is Peaceful

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060411/D8GU3D2G1.html

This insistence comes from the same Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who claims the Holocaust never happened.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why is it OK for other countries to have nuclear weapons and not Iran?

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is doing exactly what it is entitled to do. The material that Iran has produced is NOT suitable for nuclear weapons.

Iran on Tuesday declared that it has gained ticket to join global nuclear club by having successfully produced 3.5 percent enriched uranium, a technological leap in the process for nuclear power plant construction.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/12/content_4413134.htm

Click to expand...

But what the hey, we can't let them A-rabs get anything nuclear, now can we?

Chavez turns to Iran on military, uranium

Chavez turns to Iran on military, uranium

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 10, 2006

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is seeking to deepen ties with Iran, with discussions on holding joint military exercises and obtaining uranium, according to Bush administration officials.
Hamas also is talking to Caracas about sending representatives to Venezuela to raise money for the militant group's newly elected Palestinian government.
But relations with another ally, Russia, have soured over a deal in which Moscow is selling 100,000 AK-47s to Venezuela. The South American country was counting on receiving new rifles, but Russia has shipped a number of refurbished models, prompting Caracas to halt the deal, the U.S. sources said.
Mr. Chavez's continuing efforts to cozy up to Iran are of increasing concern inside the Pentagon and State Department.

balance of Washington Times article

This partly answers the question why it is not okay for Iran to have nuclear technology and enriched uranium. You get fruitcake dictators allying with each other, allowing nuclear proliferation to spread like a disease.

Venezuela is the fourth largest crude oil supplier to the US, surpassed by Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Search on [US oil suppliers] and look for a recently compiled listing. I think this would signal that it is time to replace Venezuela as a major supplier.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why is it OK for other countries to have nuclear weapons and not Iran?

Click to expand...

Because they've sworn to annihilate another sovreign nation, and nuclear weapons go a long way towards making that reality?

CleverNickname said:

Because they've sworn to annihilate another sovreign nation, and nuclear weapons go a long way towards making that reality?

Click to expand...

Yes, and thats why other countries have nuclear weapons...as a deterrent. Iran can say a lot of things...brash Chinese Generals do it with some regularity regarding the USA. North Korea is an expert in international trash talking.

You haven't really answered my question though. The question is more about morals than intent. What makes the USA (or any other nuclear power) morally superior to Iran? How does that make it OK for one nation to have nukes and not OK for another?

Morals, schmorals.

That stuff's for people whose job isn't to keep the rest of us from becoming a radioactive fireball.

It's not okay for Iran to have nukes because we (NATO and the permanent members of the UNSC) say it's not okay.

It's okay for India and Pakistan because they only want to nuke each other (in between cricket matches, anyway) and because the label in my shirt probably says "India" or "Pakistan" on it.

Yes, it's all a bunch of double-standard BS. But this ain't kindergarten and life's not fair.

That doesn't mean I think that we always make the right decisions, but I don't try to square large-scale military strategy with the same morality as applies to us in our daily lives in the 'burbs.

P.S. Didn't we all want a nuke when we were in grade school? No one let us have any, either.

Something aint right about all of this.

It seems like Iran is trying to egg us in on a fight. With all the talk on new missles, torpedos, and uranium I think they are trying to draw us in to a fight. There has to be some underlying reason for this. Maybe they think that if we get involved in Iran they can try to take over Iraq. Maybe they think our military is overtasked and cant handle a fight with them.

I don't know for sure what their motive is but it's making things pretty dicey in that area of the country. My question is, how much longer is Israel gonna wait before they take the gloves off.

Ok, now I can take off my tinfoil hat

Lennyjoe...

Could be that Iran knows that we can't really do anything but bark. Or maybe they already *are* nuclear capable.
If Israel attacks, we'll end up paying for it.
In any case, I'm putting on my Tin Foil Easter Cap early.
Biker

The question is more about morals than intent. What makes the USA (or any other nuclear power) morally superior to Iran? How does that make it OK for one nation to have nukes and not OK for another?

Click to expand...

All that moral stuff (in the context of who may posess what kind of weapons, anyway) is just rhetoric.

The point is, we can have nukes and nobody can do anything about it (yet). Iran can't boast that same confidence though.

Basically, we get them because nobody is bad enough to try to take them away from us. Iran doesn't get them because there are bigger boys on the block (us and Israel) who dont' want them to have nukes and are big enough to kick their ass and take them away.

We'll see how it actually plays out.

Well, this explains why gas went up another 15 cents.

yes neoncowboy, we all know that might makes right, but I think our use of might may be part of the reason our enemies want nuclear weapons.

I can certainly see why they would want them. When a nearby enemy power has them, and that enemy has a very rich and well armed ally, is it not prudent to arm yourself in a similar fashion?

Yes, and thats why other countries have nuclear weapons...as a deterrent. Iran can say a lot of things...brash Chinese Generals do it with some regularity regarding the USA. North Korea is an expert in international trash talking.

You haven't really answered my question though. The question is more about morals than intent. What makes the USA (or any other nuclear power) morally superior to Iran? How does that make it OK for one nation to have nukes and not OK for another?

Click to expand...

Do you think the world would be better place if Iran had the ability to turn entire cities into radioactive craters whenever it wanted to?

I don't.

I can certainly see why they would want them. When a nearby enemy power has them, and that enemy has a very rich and well armed ally, is it not prudent to arm yourself in a similar fashion?

Click to expand...

I guess it's worth a try...but all it's likely to get them is a severe ass whipping.

I hate American interventionism as much as anyone...but that's what our leaders do. And they make sure they have the biggest weapons of anyone to do it with.

What difference does the morals make? We're talking about the US Government...what do you expect them to do, the right thing?

Anyway, here we are in a mess with only one real solution...kill all of the enemy and all of their women and children. Wipe their whole religion and culture and genetic identity off the face of the earth. That's what they have in mind for us and the only way we can prevent it is to eliminate them.

Unfortunately, Americans don't have the sense to recognize this or the guts to deal with it...so the Iranians will probably win this one.

The American Republic...it was good while it lasted.

yes neoncowboy, we all know that might makes right, but I think our use of might may be part of the reason our enemies want nuclear weapons.

I can certainly see why they would want them. When a nearby enemy power has them, and that enemy has a very rich and well armed ally, is it not prudent to arm yourself in a similar fashion?

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that Iran is foolish for wanting nukes. Quite the countrary...

The question is what's prudent for us? Iran has sworn to annihilate one of our strongest allies, and nuclear weapons would make that a very easy thing to accomplish. We're obligated to do what we can to prevent that.

It would be prudent for us to ensure that Iran cannot nuke us or our allies whenever it wants.

Or do you believe that it would be smarter to allow Iran to hold a proverbial knife to our throat?

Since When

"a nearby enemy power"

Please document for me the allegation made that Israel is a "nearby enemy power." In the absence of Iranian threats, Israel hasn't declared itself an enemy of Iran, but Iran hasn't stopped talking nuclear aggression for the last five years.

One of the reasons that theocracies are so brittle is because they're easily turned into glass. The sooner the better.

Buddy

It seems like Iran is trying to egg us in on a fight.

Click to expand...

If you don't have WMDs, bluff. Worked for Saddam, who was afraid Iran would invade.

Here's a long and link-filled piece describing the rationale for stopping Iran.

Right or wrong, this is the thinking of the thoughtful on the pro-preemption side.

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/04/09-week/index.php#a001880

Let me see if I get this right. Liberals have been trying for years to disarm first the US then the rest of the world of nuclear weapons. Now they give us this relativism crap of Who are We to say Iran can not have nuclear weapons. After all they have as much right to have them as the evil USA. Never mind that it might be a bad idea that Iran have Nukes. They just might use them. But of coarse we might have to do something bad to prevent them from doing so. I guess we are evil and they are just trying to keep us in line so the world will be a lovely peaceful place. Yea I really understand that logic. I really wonder what a world with Iran with Nukes would be like. Maybe they could hold the whole world hostage with their Nukes along with their oil . Well that would be a good thing as the evil US just exploits the Middle East by buying that ole nasty oil anyways. Never mind a world wide depression could occur. Maybe Iran would really just nuke the little Satan Israel after all they are evil as they have persecuted the Palestinians. Maybe the Iranians will try to spread Islam by the sword as their prophet did and this time they will have Nukes to do so.. Yea a peaceful world. Let make sure and talk and talk and talk and maybe we will find out exactly what they will do. Surely they will just use this for peaceful energy reasons. Sure.

But what the hey, we can't let them A-rabs get anything nuclear, now can we?

Click to expand...

Iranians are not Arabs.

Iranians are not Arabs.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. = sarcasm.

While I'm not a big fan of Iran, I don't think an invasion of Iran would be a good idea. We could pull off an invasion. Sure, plenty of 'surgical bombing' and our troops in Tehran within 48 hours. Then nasty reality hits. The Gulf closed to all tankers, a very well armed and trained insurgency, etc etc.

Remember, Iran has a population of nearly 70 million and is slightly larger than Alaska. In comparison, Iraq has a population of roughly 27 million and is a fourth of the size of Iran. Additionally, Iran has the advantage of monitoring the US invasion of Iraq as a learning experience of insurgency. If they haven't made preperations for a possible invasion, they're dumber than a box of rocks.

An invasion of Iran would be many times more difficult than the invasion of Iraq. We have a military more experienced with insurgency, but also a bit worn from occupation. Materialistically speaking, we're already a bit short on critical items. An invasion of Iran would be very, very expensive. Just a wild guess, but I'd say a minimum of five times as expensive as the current Iraqi occupation.

It'd also require most of the deployable soldiers in the entire US Army not currently in Iraq, Afghanistan or South Korea. Maybe nearly all deployable soldiers. We wouldn't be able to field any major units in event of any crisis within the US. Imagine how badly Katrina would have turned out without any US military forces.

I don't think the US will conduct wide scale genocide or a nuclear first strike. I hope our elected leaders are sane enough to realize such options are not very wise. Last poll I saw, 60% of Americans are disproving of Bush's Iraq adventure, 38% supporting. If he started firing off nukes without a declaration of war from Congress, he'd be removed from office.

Removed from Office?

By polls???

Buddy

It seems like Iran is trying to egg us in on a fight. With all the talk on new missles, torpedos, and uranium I think they are trying to draw us in to a fight.

Click to expand...

I see that as well. The thing is, they have at least a hundred or more Exocets (remember the Stark?) and who knows how many unstoppable nearly-Mach 3 Sunburns. The last assessment I'd read, a landside launch of a Sunburn...the crew of a ship out in the gulf would have less than TWENTY SECONDS to react before it hit.

Iran is not Sadaam's ten-years-broken military. They DO have a real military with lots of troops, planes, and lots and lots and lots of missiles.

I'm really wondering if they'd simply annihiliate the US Fifth Fleet in the gulf with a hellacious barrage of antiship cruise missiles if we do anything, to show that they have "strength".

Whether it's "right" or not is irrelevant, this administration has shown that it's not exactly the best on intelligence, and really, REALLY needs to go back to school and read Sun Tzu, as far as strategies.

As per Condi Rice's "we made thousands of mistakes", well, that's not acceptable. And doing it with Iran could leave us with a memorial of names longer than the Vietnam Wall.