| Author |
Message |
    
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 909
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 5:15 pm: | 
|
I'm surprised no one has discussed Iran yet, so I'll pose this question:
Should Iran be permitted to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons? If the answer is no, what should the international community do, if anything?
Frankly, given what's transpired with the UN, resolutions, inspectors, etc. with the Iraq situation over the last 15 years, I'm clueless.
(And please, I'm beggin' you. Limit this discussion to Iran. Let's not bitch about Iraq.) |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 327
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 6:23 pm: |
|
thegoodsgt.
I did try to start a thread (The Iran Thang, yo!  ) a while back but no one seemd interested which I too found odd...
-SLK |
sylvester the investor
Citizen
Username: Mummish
Post Number: 101
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
this is a major problem. my opinion is that Iran is looking to seize the opportune moment figuring that we are caught up in Iraq.
Obviously the UN showed its utter powerlessness during the runup to iraq.
Europe needs to take a stand here.
Look out for Israel, we could start to see numbes being lobbed into Iraq.
The situation could get real ugly.
We should just bomb the entire middle east and start from scatch. no one would miss them. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 520
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 8:13 pm: |
|
I say let Iran make nukes. When the first one goes off in a major European city then all the libs in the world will finally be ready to fight against the true enemy - extreme muslims. Because we all know if we try to take them out now the American and European Left will scream and holler. Let them commit a 9/11 in Europe and see how fast they come running to 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave for help. |
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 356
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
I wish I knew what to do about Iran. I don't have the knowledge to comment in any detail or with any conviction what we should do. What I've read suggests that we need China and Russia - in addition to Europe - to enforce sanctions.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3233
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Had W(orst) not got started a War based on lies against a country that had no WMD and no ties to 9/11, perhaps we would have the resources and allies to deal with a country that DOES have WMD and ties to 9/11.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4678
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:06 am: |
|
IMHO, the only way to get the attention of Iran and the rest of the world, would be with a unified America...
Just imagine the only Super Power in the world speaking with one voice. Imagine what other nations would think if a unified America said, "No Nukes, or else"!!! Who can suggest what that might look like? |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:20 am: |
|
"Had W(orst) not got started a War based on lies against a country that had no WMD and no ties to 9/11, perhaps we would have the resources and allies to deal with a country that DOES have WMD and ties to 9/11."
So, you're saying the nations of the world somehow don't have to deal with Iran because of... politics?
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 853
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:38 am: |
|
1) I would think with the number of suitcase nukes that were loosened up from the former USSR, that Iran already has a few.
2) If Iran has dug its program elements deep, say 100 ft. NO weapon in any inventory can touch those underground facilities. It would take a 20 ft tungsten based orbital kinetic penetrator. Which doesn't exist.
3) If Iran already has a nuke, And somebody starts with Iran. Does Iran use the nuke they have, after being attacked. Does Iran put that nuke on a 30 ft boat and sail it into NYC?
4) How many loose nukes are still floating around?
Brewster Jennings used to be in the Bizz of buying black market nukes and other WMDs. I guess they are now out of Bizz.
5) How many times are people going to listen to BUSH. and watch him and his pals screw up.
-9-11, airplanes pull u-turns in the sky- gotta do the photo-op with the 2nd graders.
-Katrina- seen from space 5 days in advance- not prepared though.
-Not mentioning Iraq--
-Does Korea have 6, or is it 7 Nukes now?.
Face it, if you want to attack Iran, you shouldn't do it with the Bush Administration, because something will go wrong. It always does. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 332
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 8:15 am: |
|
MHD-
OMG...I still can't believe people are running around screeching "BUSH LIED!" You probably said it so many times you now actually believe it. Can you please inform the rest of us ignorant souls WHY he lied?
This should be good...
-SLK |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5574
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 9:44 am: |
|
Just as an aside, and I know the numbers are not the same, but Southerner...are you ignoring the Madrid and London bombings when you say..
Quote:Let them commit a 9/11 in Europe and see how fast they come running to 1600 Pennsylvannia Ave for help.
I realize the death toll was greater in NYC/DC/PA but those two attacks constitute a philosophically similar desire.
Thanks for showing your isolationism, I knew I saw something stuck to your shoe. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3234
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
Scrotum,
Do you recall the words "after all this is the man who tried to kill my Daddy"?
What other reason was there to target Iraq over Iran? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 337
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
MHD-
If you have been paying attention, Iran has only been recently flexing their muscles. In other words, there was no reason to go in at the time we went into Iraq.
Did you really forget the whole history with Iraq, or intentionally ignoring it? America took over the job the UN failed to do.
And from what I can tell, you would be one of the first ones whining if went into Iran instead of Iraq anyways so what is the difference?
Can you please add something remotely interesting to the conversation instead of some knee jerk tibits you got off of Democratic Underground.com?
Umm, thanks...
-SLK |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4940
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:14 pm: |
|
psst ... the U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, looking for the WMDs (which turned out not to be there), until just before the U.S. invasion, when President Bush told them they better get out.
That's not from "Democratic Underground", those are facts. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 523
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Duncan,
To compare 9/11 with Madrid and London is just ignorant. And I do have a lot on the bottom of my shoe, and most of it is from having to muck through your posts. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5577
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Southerner why is it ignorant? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 340
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Nohero-
psst...and long ago in galaxy far far away the entire world was certain that Iraq had WMDs, including the UN.
You do remember the UN, the organization that is caught up in the biggest scndal in history involving none other than, yep, you guessed it, Iraq! But hey, let's keep trusting them and Saddam while we are at it.
In Brooklyn, NO ONE ever saw the Russian Mob in Brighton Beach but EVERYONE knew they existed... |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:47 pm: |
|
In Brooklyn, NO ONE ever saw the Russian Mob in Brighton Beach
hey! i saw them! their lead guitarist kicked •••!
they suck now that they have gone acoustic. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4942
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
"But hey, let's keep trusting them and Saddam while we are at it."
Not sure how that follows from what I wrote, but I'm sure someone will explain it to me. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 341
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Nohero-
Is today's cold weather seeping into your brain?
The UN Inspectors were doing a minimal job seeking these WMDS out. If you recall, Iraq were asked to cough up these WMDS on multiple ocassions (which they refused) while these inspections were going on. Slowly but surely, the UN Oil for Food Scandal finally broke which puts into question any efforts the UN out forth in seeking out these WMDs...
But hey, if they weren't found then I guess they don't exist, right?
The scary thing it appears you rather put faith in what the UN and Saddam says then your own country....
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4943
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
"The scary thing it appears you rather put faith in what the UN and Saddam says then your own country...."
Okay, not sure how that follows from what I wrote.
I was just recounting some facts. They happen to be facts determined by our own government. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 343
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
I am just trying to get this conversation out of the rut that its in. Maybe I overreached a little but the UN put forth minimal efforts regarding Iraq and the US only did what the UN was suppose to do. And with the arrival of the OFF scandal, it puts the UNs efforts under a skeptical light.... |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4945
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
It may be out of a rut, but now it's in a loop.
In further response to your post, see here. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 345
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Cute Nohero...running back to your hole on both boards I see... |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 346
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
So UN, what are you going to do about it?
-SLK
West is in dark ages, says Iran's President
Leader threatens retaliation if the US and EU continue to try to block nuclear programme
Robert Tait in Tehran
Sunday January 15, 2006
The Observer
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline President of Iran, launched an angry tirade against the West yesterday, accusing it of a 'dark ages' mentality and threatening retaliation unless it recognised his country's nuclear ambitions.
In a blistering assault, Ahmadinejad repeated the Islamic regime's position that it would press ahead with a nuclear programme despite threats by the European Union and United States to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, where it could face possible sanctions. He added that Iran was a 'civilised nation' that did not need such weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a wholly peaceful attempt to generate electricity.
Addressing a rare press conference in Tehran, he appeared to issue thinly veiled threats against Western countries, implying that they could face serious consequences unless they backed down. 'You need us more than we need you. All of you today need the Iranian nation,' Ahmadinejad said. 'Why are you putting on airs? You don't have that might.'
Reminding the West that it had supported the monarchical regime of the former Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi - overthrown in the 1979 Islamic revolution - he went on: 'Those same powers have done their utmost to oppress us, but this nation, because of its dignity, has forgiven them to a large extent. But if they persist with their present stance, maybe the day will come when the Iranian nation will reconsider.' He added: 'If they want to deny us our rights, we have ways to secure those rights.'
Ahmadinejad, an ultra-Islamist populist elected last June, did not elaborate on his apparent threat. But Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer and analysts have predicted that any disruption to its supplies could have a grave impact on global markets.
The Iranian President's outburst - the latest in a series asserting Iran's nuclear rights and questioning Israel's right to exist - came after the EU last week effectively abandoned two-and-a-half years of negotiations with the Iranians. The move came after Iran decided to remove UN seals at a nuclear plant in Natanz, enabling it to resume research into uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to produce a nuclear weapon.
The EU, backed by the United States, is calling for an emergency meeting of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to discuss Iran's possible referral to the security council. The next phase of the intensifying diplomatic pressure on Iran takes place in London tomorrow when officials from the EU, US, Russia and China gather to discuss future strategy.
Ahmadinejad accused the West of misusing bodies such as the UN and IAEA. 'Why are you damaging the good name of the security council and IAEA for you own political purposes?' he asked. 'Don't take away the credibility of legitimate forums. Your arsenals are full to the brim, yet when it's the turn of a nation such as mine to develop peaceful nuclear technology you object and resort to threats.'
In an apparent effort to cast the nuclear issue as one that could unite all Iranians and appeal to nationalist sentiment, Ahmadinejad spoke against the backdrop of a picture of the Damavand volcano, widely seen as a patriotic, non-religious symbol. But he did not withdraw his remarks, warning that Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who on Friday condemned his comments as 'unacceptable', would be tried as 'terrorists' and 'war criminals' due to their support of Israel.
German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler yesterday called for travel restrictions on Iran's politicians. He told German radio that economic sanctions would be 'a very dangerous path' and could hurt both sides. Germany is the biggest exporter to Iran.
|
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
The U.N. isn't going to do anything. Anything meaningful, anyways.
But that doesn't somehow mean that the U.S. should.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3235
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Quote:Iran has only been recently flexing their muscles. In other words, there was no reason to go in at the time we went into Iraq.
Try reading the 9/11 Report, which states conclusively that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and Iran did. (http://911.gnu-designs.com/TOC.html)
If having a connection to 9/11 was "no reason to go in", I can't imagine what would be a good enough reason for you.
Unfortunately, W(orst) blew that opportunity & will never be trusted again to start a pre-emptive war. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5579
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Southerner...I take it that since you have posted since I asked my question that you have no answer for it?
|
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 10:03 am: |
|
Sorry to go off topic, but since someone else
brought it up, I would like to give my reason
why I think President Bush, et al, lied about
WMDs.Look at this statement from 3-26-03:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030326-4.html
Scroll down about halfway to this paragraph:
It has been six days since the major ground war began. It's been five days since the major air war began. And every day has brought us closer to our objective. At the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Special Forces helped to secure air fields and bridges and oil fields, to clear the way for our forces and to prevent sabotage and environmental catastrophe. Our pilots and Cruise missiles have struck vital military targets with lethal precision.
If we knew for sure that Iraq had WMDs, we must
have known where they were. WMDs would pose a
serious threat to our forces. Question: Why did
Special Forces not secure the WMD sites first and
then secure the infrastructure? Is it not prudent
military doctrine to focus on eliminating the biggest threat facing your troops instead of worrying about bridges, etc.?
This short article on WMDs/lying is also well
worth reading:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/hardright.cgi/2005/11/23#Iraq__They_Kn ow_The
Now back to my isolationist lurking. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5588
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
Welcome aboard threering...helluva a place to make your first post, eh?  |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1684
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 11:08 am: |
|
MHD: I don't understand. You're saying nothing should be done about Iran, because the U.S. went to war with Iraq for the wrong reasons?
I'm not following the connection.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2982
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 11:11 am: |
|
I think a big part of the reason that there has been so little previous discussion about Iran and their nuclear aspirations is there really isn't much we can do. I mean... is there? We can stomp our feet and make angry statements, but what kind of political or economic leverage do we have to affect their course? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3955
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 11:22 am: |
|
We have to convince the Chinese, Russians and Indians to apply pressure to Iran. That is our only political leverage.
We do, of course, have a military option, but I think we would come to regret the use of force in Iran even more than in Iraq.
My view is that the world is going to play with nukes until someone loses and eye and a few hundred million people die. Then there will be some new thinking on nukes. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5046
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 12:17 pm: |
|
The key is having China abstain. They are very dependent upon Iranian oil. Russia had made noises they'd go along with hauling Iran before the UN Security Council, or at least abstain on a sanctions vote.
Military action is very risky. Hard to really be sure you're taking out underground research facilities, plus there's a sizeable moderate population in Iran composed of businesses, entrepreneurs and students that would be upset at outside military action against Iran.
I say sanctions, and fund opposition groups while turning loose a sizeable Kurdish population. These groups would use military and popular means of overthrow or regime change. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Nothing can and will be done about Iran because like most other threats Europe will wait until disaster befalls them or their under the table agreements are exposed.
I say leave Iran alone. The world always a needs a nice antagonist and Iran will do more for pulling the western nations together than a thousand NATO and UN meetings. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5594
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Southerner..why is it ignorant? If you are gonna call me on the carpet about something, please explain why.
The only difference between the 9/11 attacks and the Madrid and London bombings were the body count.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2988
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
A few interesting letters to the editor of the NYT on the subject...
_________________________________________
To the Editor:
There are several ways in which Iran could be accommodated on nuclear enrichment while restricting its nuclear weapons capabilities ("Iran and the Bomb," editorial, Jan. 13).
First, Tehran could be permitted a small enrichment plant with a few hundred centrifuges, which could be situated abroad or in Iran in collaboration with international partners. This would not give Tehran the few thousand centrifuges required for a nuclear weapons program (the plant would still require some years to develop and operate).
Second, Tehran could limit the scope of its enrichment programs for 5 to 10 years, while a more assured international fuel supply system is established. Thereafter, Iran could permanently restrict its enrichment capabilities in exchange for fuel from this multilateral consortium.
Third, Iran could renounce building and testing new missiles while it pursues limited enrichment - its nuclear programs would be less threatening without capable missile delivery systems.
Dinshaw Mistry
Cincinnati, Jan. 13, 2006
The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati and the author of a book on nonproliferation.
•
To the Editor:
You write that "no one has yet come up with any very good ways of deflecting Iran from its nuclear course." But it is obvious that Iran seeks a bomb principally to counter the barely concealed ambition of Bush administration hard-liners to force "regime change" there.
After seeing what has happened in Iraq, and listening to the "axis of evil" rhetoric, any patriotic Iranian military leader must be advising his government that only a bomb will deter the United States.
As long as we refuse to deal with this paramount reality, efforts to deflect Iran cannot succeed. The only way to slow or stop this momentum is for the United States to conclude a convincing nonaggression treaty with Iran, finally accepting Iranians' ability to determine their own destiny.
William S. Kessler
Seattle, Jan. 13, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Thomas L. Friedman is correct in calling for Russia to act responsibly to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions ("The Axis of Order?," column, Jan. 13). Unfortunately, until now, Russia has played a cagey game - calling for Iran to abide by its international obligations at the same time that Moscow has promised to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor and completed a new arms agreement with Tehran.
The new regime in Tehran has made Russia's strategy increasingly untenable and embarrassing. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the earth just as the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, was in Jerusalem. The Iranian resumption of nuclear research also calls into question Russia's claim that Tehran is not in pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Russia's foreign policy has been pursued with an eye to short-term economic gain rather than guided by longer-term strategic interest. It behooves the United States and the European Union to persuade President Vladimir V. Putin and those around him that the billions forfeited now will be more than paid back in preventing a nuclear Iran.
Carol R. Saivetz
Cambridge, Mass., Jan. 13, 2006
The writer is a research associate, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Okay Duncan,
I know this won't get us anywhere but just for fun.
Would you compare someone who makes $8,000 per year with someone making $100,000 per year? Or someone making $80,000 with someone making $1,000,00 per year?
How about this. Would you make a comparison between somone who pays $13,000 a year in property taxes with someone who pays $1,040?
The body count of Madrid and London combined was 8% of 9/11.
In Madrid, they lost 4 commuter trains with 191 dead. In London they lost 3 trains and 1 bus and had 52 dead.
On 9/11, we lost 4 airplanes, and buildings 1 - 7 at the World Trade Center, with 2,986 dead.
So, yes, to compare the three attacks is ignorant to the impact of the attacks. As I said earlier, when a major European City has their 9/11, the liberal regimes will be running to the White House as fast as they can.
As you said, "The only difference between the 9/11 attacks and the Madrid and London bombings were the body count." as if the body count wasn't important. So by your reasoning if a terrorist kills one person that attack should have the same impact as 9/11 since body count doesn't matter to you?
These European bombings were sad and tragic, but the comparison is silly. 9/11 changed the American way of life. Those bombings just changed traffic patterns for a few days. |
Mr. Big Poppa
Citizen
Username: Big_poppa
Post Number: 488
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 2:50 pm: |
|
These European bombings were sad and tragic, but the comparison is silly. 9/11 changed the American way of life. Those bombings just changed traffic patterns for a few days.
Southerner, when was the last time you were in London or Madrid to make those assessments? Granted, I don't think the impact on those two countries was as great as 9/11 was to us for two reasons:
1) 9/11 already occurred and affected the entire world, not just the US
2) Both of those countries had experienced much terrorism in the past (IRA and Basque movements), so the impact may have only been incremental as opposed to eye-opening. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 546
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Even a hard-nosed conservative would agree that we are back to square one, that is, we are back to the pre 9/11/01 scenario. The American foreign policy is a running joke now. Just got back from India and the editorial pages are hugely critical of what the West does. To think that India is an ally on the war on terror is something that one would have to swallow with a huge bag of salt. Save for a few right wing publications (the rabid Hindutvadis who see Hitler as their hero), the rest are extremely critical of the intentions of the West. It's high time we woke up to the rest of the world on the localized wars on terror instead of confining our analyses to the ubiquitous war on terror that the mainstrean press in the US loves to cover. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Poppa,
I was there over the weekend doing analysis which is why I was tardy in responding to Duncan. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4962
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
I was in London a week after the second bombing incident (the one where the bombs did not go off). Yes, the bombings may not have been as traumatic as 9/11 was for us - but, then again, their city has been bombed before.
Nevertheless, I spoke with many people who were profoundly affected by the thought that such violence could be continuing, and who were concerned about transportation and other public places. And, it was interesting to see the public dialogue there, and contrast it with our politicians here. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 352
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 9:11 pm: |
|
MHD-
Thanks for the link but I have the report thank you...only had a chance to read about half...
Well, if Iran has a closer role to 911 then what are we waiting for?  |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2872
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Some thoughts:
1. Why does Iran need nuclear energy to secure its energy future, as they claim? They have more than enough proven reserves for the foreseeable future, so while their concern for future generations is admirable, they are better off spending their money on fixing the very real economic and infrastructure problems they have today.
2. Now is the time for the US and Europe to argue for a thorium-based nuclear cycle, and offer it to Iran FOR FREE. The thorium cycle means no need for enriched uranium, and little to no waste plutonium to be enriched. Of course, it also does not make money for our currently-configured nuke companies, but I am sure they could develop an alternative in the name of global stability (right?).
3. Why is it okay for Israel to have nukes but no one else in the Middle East? It is very hard to argue against Iran if no one is sanctioning Israel. The answer is that Israel will never even discuss it unless the other states in the region recognize its right to exist--especially Iran. And do so in substantive ways. There may be some room for negotiation on this point. Doubtful, but something is better than nothing.
4. Egypt is next. If Iran goes nuclear, Egypt will not be far behind.
5. What are we going to do when a sovereign, elected government of Iraq decides that it requires nukes to offset a) Israel b) Iran c) Egypt? Invade them again, or sell them the technology? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2238
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:28 pm: |
|
ESL, I'll take a shot, though I'm sure you're questions were more rhetorical...
1-They need nuclear energy so that they can have a cover for the nuclear weapons program. I doubt anyone really thinks otherwise.
2-Hmm.. interesting proposition, but does a thorium-based plant exist?
3-It is ok for Israel to have nukes because we like them, and they're more like us than their Arab neighbors. whether that's a good way to run foreign policy is another matter, but it's reality.
4-Agreed, though for now, Egypt is slightly less militant than Iran.
5-I'd guess we'll sell them the weapons, then when they don't act the way we want them to, bomb the •••• out of them and invade. Just like this time. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5073
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Iran needs nuclear energy because they feel very guilty about supplying the fuel for all those nasty greenhouse gases which will tip the balance of the earth so dramatically that we'll all die. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 364
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 7:52 am: |
|
Interesting...
BERLIN (Reuters) - EU powers began circulating a draft resolution on Wednesday for a February 2 meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog asking it to report Iran to the Security Council, but Russia was seeking moves that stopped short of a formal referral.
The EU draft resolution drew scorn from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency will hold an emergency meeting that day on Iran's nuclear work at the request of European Union powers, an IAEA spokesman said.
France, Britain, Germany and the United States are expected to push to have Tehran referred to the U.N. Security Council after it resumed research that could be used for generating electricity or making atomic bombs.
But EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said European states were considering a Russian proposal that could delay a formal referral of Iran to the council.
Speaking to reporters during a visit to Washington, Solana said Russia had suggested the IAEA emergency meeting should call for a special U.N. Security Council session to debate Iran's case, but that there be no formal referral to the council at that time.
He acknowledged "We're talking to the Russians" about the proposal, which would have the Iran case return to IAEA jurisdiction after the Security Council debate. But he said there were many unanswered questions and no decision.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin did not specify what action they expected the IAEA to take at its February 2 meeting.
"There is the issue of whether it goes to the U.N. Security Council -- this is a question that has to be answered," Merkel said. "I think we have to think step by step, and above all send a signal to Iran that shows the international community won't accept it if Iran doesn't respect the commitments that are expected of it and the promises it has made."
Villepin said a referral to the Security Council could not be excluded "today" but suggested the door remained open for further diplomacy.
Iran slammed the European draft resolution.
"It is clear this is politically motivated," the Iranian president said when asked about the text drafted by France, Britain and Germany that diplomats said had so far only been seen by U.S. and EU officials.
"We are asking them to step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic," the 48-year-old leader told reporters.
The West suspects Iran is seeking nuclear arms. Tehran says its atomic program aims only to generate electricity.
'NOT MUCH TO TALK ABOUT'
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said nuclear weapons were against Islamic teachings, as well as Iranian interests, but he vowed to pursue atomic energy.
The United States and EU said they saw no point in further talks with Iran and it was time for the Security Council to tackle the issue, ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran and opening the door to eventual sanctions.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said there was "not much to talk about" and Solana, who she hosted for talks, agreed.
Iran on Tuesday proposed more talks with the Europeans, who called off the negotiations last week after Tehran removed U.N. seals on uranium enrichment equipment.
Rice, speaking before talks with Solana, said the EU had made clear Iran had crossed an important threshold.
But previous EU predictions that the IAEA board would send the Iran dossier to the council as soon as early next month were "looking a bit sick," a top EU diplomat said.
U.S. and European officials say a majority on the IAEA board favors referral, but they want as much support as they can muster from Russia, China and other sceptics.
Iran has begun to lobby developing nations on the IAEA board ahead of any vote. Ahmadinejad is going to Syria on Wednesday, his oil minister is visiting India and other Iranian officials are in Egypt and South Africa.
An EU diplomat said the draft text asks Iran "to help the (IAEA) clarify questions regarding possible nuclear weapons activities" and calls on IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei "to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Security Council."
Some Western officials say simply hauling Iran to the Security Council for censure could prompt a change of heart in Tehran, seen as keen to avoid pariah status.
Any move to use full-scale sanctions against Iran, let alone military action, could send world oil prices rocketing and reopen some of the international rifts opened by the Iraq war.
(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Parinoosh Arami in Tehran, Kerstin Gehmlich in Paris, Chris Buckley in Beijing, Sue Pleming and Carol Giacomo in Washington)
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2883
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:57 am: |
|
Rastro:
1. I was being a bit cynical--but it is the way that the question should be phrased by the IAEA, if not even more forcefully.
2. Thorium-based reactors have been discussed for at least 30 years as far as I know. I first read about it in a non-proliferation book in 1977. Finally, interest is coming back. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68045,00.html Thorium reactors need more research, but the main reason we never had them is because the US, Russia, France, China, India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, England and perhaps Iran all wanted to make bombs, and for that you need plutonium, which is best made from spent uranium.
3. I think the Israel issue is more than racism (predominantly Western European country surrounded by all them dark skinned Arabs)--although this is clearly a part of it. A larger part is that we recognize that Israel is the most threatened nation on earth and needs something, anything, to protect itself. I have no doubt that if Iran went to wipe out Israel, at best the other Arab states would stand by clucking their tongues, if not dive in immediately themselves to divide up the pie. The only solution to nonproliferation in the Middle East is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian question peacefully and have both nations recognized as being sovereign.
4. Scrotis--thanks for the article. The EU, US, and IAEA and UN have to grow big hairy ones ASAP. Iran is a pariah state, with about as many friends now as Saddam had prior to our invasion. But it is very powerful, has a formidable army, and controls lots of oil. Okay, so an invasion is unlikely to succeed and is unwise in any case. So, have a total blockade on their oil until they give up on nukes. Blow up their oil lines so they can't cheat. Basically say we are willing to choke our own economies, and find alternatives to oil (a good thing in any event) in order to avoid you getting nukes. In fact, we are so serious we are taking this step KNOWING it will hurt us and it will also hurt your people, but they elected you so that is their problem. FU to your oil extortion. And then the politicians have to be able to sell this concept of security over short-run oil to us and to the Chinese, and to the Russians, and to anyone else who will try to run the blockade. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2242
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 1:38 pm: |
|
ESL, I'm a huge fan of Israel and support it wholeheartedly, and I agree that they are the most threatened nation in the world. But do you think that truly plays into our foreign policy? Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I don't see how our interests are served by supporting Israel, except to maintain a thorn in the side of (and a distraction for) the Arab nations.
Plus, in general they speak English better than the Arabs, and we have a common religious history. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3963
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
There is one reason why we support Israel in the post-Cold War world.
The pro-Israel vote is an important factor in U.S. national elections.
Remember, all politics are local.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2244
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Which I don't quite get. Given the low Jewish population in the US, and the strong anti-Israel sentiment that exists in many quarters. But since we Jews have all the money, I guess we're good for some PAC money... |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3964
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Jews are not the only supporters of Israel. Evangelical Christians support Israel. Many other Americans view Israel as an ally in the war on terror. And, you bring up a good point about PACs. Often, it is not the raw numbers of supporters that count, but the effectiveness of their organizations. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2893
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Evangelicals give tons of support to Israel and pro-Israeli politicians. They would rather the Holy Land be in the hands of Jews than Muslims, plain and simple. Some go beyond and think that Jesus will return again to Israel.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10340
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Hate to break this to you but at least some Evangelicals support Israel because they believe the Apocalypse will start there when Israel and the Arabs start chucking nucs at each other. Just a slightly different view of what Tjohn said.
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2898
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hmmm, perhaps they should both get together and start chucking nukes at Pat Robertson? It could be the best thing he can do to bring peace to the Middle East. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page