Bomb Iran

[SummerMorning]

U.S. refuses to rule out Iran attack
Sun 12 September, 2004 13:08

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States is determined to stop Iran getting atomic weapons, and has signalled Washington will not rule out an attack if peaceful diplomacy failed to achieve this.

President George W. Bush's top official on nuclear on-proliferation, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, was asked during a brief visit to Israel if the United States could consider such an attack.

"President Bush is determined to try and find a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons," he said. "But we are determined that they are not going to achieve a nuclear weapons capability."

Iran says it is not trying to build an atom bomb and its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes.

But intelligence officials told Reuters in Vienna earlier this week they estimated it would take Iran a few months to a year to become nuclear capable -- meaning Tehran would be able to build a nuclear bomb without importing technology or experts.

As Iran's arch-enemy, Israel has particular fear of Tehran developing nuclear arms. Israel is presumed to have its own atomic arsenal, but has a policy of neither confirming nor denying that.

Bolton's comments in Jerusalem came the day before a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is due to discuss a European resolution giving Tehran until November to come clean about its nuclear programme.

The United States wants Iran brought before the U.N. Security Council to face possible sanctions, but Bolton said Washington did not see such measures as automatic.

"The most important reason to take Iran to the Security Council is to heighten political pressure," he said.

"It is by no means inevitable that the Security Council has to impose economic sanctions or take other steps, that's why this really lies in Iran's hands."

Iran on Sunday rejected European demands it abandon sensitive nuclear activities but reiterated its readiness to provide assurances that its atomic ambitions are entirely peaceful.

Wonderful... what a perfect way to keep messing everything up. Why, oh why, do I get the feeling that everything is just going to blow up in all OUR faces because of the foreign policy of this wonderful US president.

How to antagonize the rest of the world 101 by GWB.

Of course - the interesting thing is that Iran, which has not initiated any wars since it became an Islamic Republic, can't have nukes. Israel, on the other hand, can... even though it has invaded Lebanon, worked very hard to erase the arab populace of its land (isn't that called "ethnic cleansing" to use the washing detergent euphemism?)...

yes indeed.

 

[cloudy]

You know, I don't like GWB anymore than anyone else, but I'm getting sorta damn tired of everything that's wrong with the world being blamed on us.

edited to add: I know that we're convenient to blame all the world's ills on, but there are other assholes out there.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Personally, I am 100% in favor of using cruise missiles or air strikes to destroy Iran's capacity to produce weapons grade fissionables.

It's a scary enough world with Pakistan and India facing each other down with the bomb to back their inflamatory rehtoric. Iran with nuclear capability is, frankly , too much to even contemplate.

-Colly

 

[SummerMorning]

Of course there are other assholes - but it's no good being one yourself, just because they are!

"pre-emptive" strikes smell just a little bit iffy to me.

 

[Guest]

You know, I don't like GWB anymore than anyone else, but I'm getting sorta damn tired of everything that's wrong with the world being blamed on us.

edited to add: I know that we're convenient to blame all the world's ills on, but there are other assholes out there.

Yep, like blaming high crime rates on the police.

 

[SummerMorning]

Hmm... you could actually blame high crime rates on the police. Like when they're more occupied with giving speeding tickets than with actually preventing people getting beaten up and shot...

 

[Guest]

Hmm... you could actually blame high crime rates on the police. Like when they're more occupied with giving speeding tickets than with actually preventing people getting beaten up and shot...

Yep, that's what I thought. Blind and ignorant.

The only way to eliminate crime is to eliminate the criminals.

The only way to eliminate terror is to eliminate the terrorists.

Let's face it neither group is going to stop because you politely asked them to. They do not negotiate. They are not diplomatic.

And anyone who believes they can be stopped by peaceful means needs to go try it for themselves.

 

[SummerMorning]

Fine, I'm blind and ignorant

But let me put it this way - isn't it better to prevent than to cure?

When people start dying its too late.

 

[Guest]

Fine, I'm blind and ignorant

But let me put it this way - isn't it better to prevent than to cure?

When people start dying its too late.

Isn't that what I was just saying? I hate to tell you this but these terrorists are not going to just stop because we tell them to behave and play nice. And THEY are the ones killing innocent people. Unfortunately the only way to stop them is to kill them. And that, my friend is the only prevention.

 

[R. Richard]

The Iranian nuclear effort is being conducted underground. Specifically under major population centers.

The Iranians are, in effect, using their own people as human shields. Said use of their own people is against the laws that govern war.

Where is the United Nations? The UN is supposed to be the peace keeper for the world. They do nothing.

JMHO.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It was pretty widely rumored back before the invasion that Iraq was just the first step in cleaning up the Middle East. Had the invasion gone as planned, with a democracy springing up once Sadam was gone, there was talk about tackling Iran or maybe Syria next. This was reported in several reputable sources like Harper's and The Atlantic.

I don't think Israel would stand for Iran going nuclear. They ran a pre-emptive raid against Iraq way back when Iraq was working on their bomb, and I would expect to see something similar if things get close. I don't think Iran has much of an air force these days.

---dr.M.

 

[amicus]

Thank you Colleen:

"Personally, I am 100% in favor of using cruise missiles or air strikes to destroy Iran's capacity to produce weapons grade fissionables."

It is surprising, sometimes, how a clear statement of principle in one of the anti US rants can give courage to a few others to step forth and be counted.

Had something like the 9/11 commission taken place following the first World Trade Center attack in all likelyhood the Towers would still be standing.

If Iran is shown to have nuclear weapons capability; if the United Nations does not act and the United States does not act and the NATO operatives do not act, then, I guarantee you, Israel will.

Anti Semitism, hatred of all things Jewish, in Europe, led to the creation of the Balfour Declaration which in essense promised a homeland in Palestine for Jewish people all over Europe.

That promise was fulfilled at the end of World War Two as the Jewish State of Israel was created.

It is as politically incorrect to point out that people of Jewish ancestry are in general of higher intellectual ability than the general population, as it is to point out that Africans, in general are of lesser intellectual ability.

Yhe world is suspicious of people of Jewish ancestry because they appear to be smarter. Certain ethnic groups in Europe were forbidden to own land centuries ago. That drove those 'certain groups' of people into trades and intellectual pursuits which resulted in a higher level of competence in those fields considered 'intellectual.'

While it is in large part a conflict between Islam and Christianity in the middle east, it is also a matter of economics aka petroleum products.

Had the United States and the rest of the world, gone 'pre emptive' following the first attack on the WTC, we would not now be facing the possibility of rogue nuclear nations in the middle east and elsewhere.

When your neighbor buys an AK 47 and tells you up front he is going to take your home by force, even then, it is a hard choice to blow the bastard to hell.

The alternative is to watch a billion dollars collapse into rubble in Manhattan or to watch a mushroom cloud rise over the Port of New Orleans.

Does that mean that those who wish to protect themselves wish to make war on innocent people? No, it does not.

The 'up front' knowledge that immediate response to any threat should, ideally, compell those 'innocent people' to urge their own governments to draw back from overt threats. However, as we all know, even in America, telling our government what it should do is at best and long and doubtful process.


Summer Morning, the thread starter, began with this:

"Bomb Iran
U.S. refuses to rule out Iran attack
Sun 12 September, 2004 13:08

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States is determined to stop Iran getting atomic weapons, and has signalled Washington will not rule out an attack if peaceful diplomacy failed to achieve this."


Summer Morning seems to present this as a gasp of horror that the United States would even consider such a thing.

I for one take it as the best news I have heard since John Kerry flashed that salute in the Democrat Convention and then dove into the bottom of the polls.

USA! USA! USA!


Thanks again, Colly...


Amicus the incurable optimist....

 

[Weird Harold]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States is determined to stop Iran getting atomic weapons, and has signalled Washington will not rule out an attack if peaceful diplomacy failed to achieve this.

To my way of thinking if you're trying to put pressure on someone to change their behavior, it's pretty stupid to tell them "we're going to nag and point fingers until you give in but there's no way we're going to do anything more if you go ahead anyway."

Looming threateningly with a Nerf Bat just isn't very effective.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Bomb Iran

To my way of thinking if you're trying to put pressure on someone to change their behavior, it's pretty stupid to tell them "we're going to nag and point fingers until you give in but there's no way we're going to do anything more if you go ahead anyway."

Looming threateningly with a Nerf Bat just isn't very effective.

Agreed.

That's what I had been trying to say. You just put it better than me. Thanks.

 

[Jagged]

Iraq........France......I mean Iran.....lol



Iran's youth are on a verge of a revolution. I hope it happens frankly and the new government to take hold I hope finds better things to spend money on then a nuke program.

I think we should not stand in the way but help where we can in that situation.


Ah yes Israel......once again someone who thinks it is okay to hate Jews. Unlike many arab nations the Israelies at least appear to be rational.



Personally I would gladly like to see the United States move against Sudan next. There good Muslims are killling, raping, looting and even enslaving African Christians in the south. Those people who want a democracy could really use our help.

 

[SummerMorning]

Where is the United Nations? The UN is supposed to be the peace keeper for the world. They do nothing.

Where is the UN? The UN is NOT supposed to be the peace keeper for the world. That's the job of the Big Five - the guys with the vetoes. That's the US, the CCCP, China, France, the UK.

 

[SummerMorning]

Isn't that what I was just saying? I hate to tell you this but these terrorists are not going to just stop because we tell them to behave and play nice. And THEY are the ones killing innocent people. Unfortunately the only way to stop them is to kill them. And that, my friend is the only prevention.

Unfortunately, we're all mixed up in the whole shebang, because we helped start the whole violent machine running.

Honestly, I don't get it - why can't people just get along, not mess with each other and just, damn it, be nice.

All of them.

Maybe we'll learn in time.

Note to all: Please, do not take this as any kind of slam against any country or people. It's a slam against double measure and blindness against the mutual responsibility of us all.

 

[gauchecritic]

[applause]

Here's a scenario.

You want to buy a gun (for whatever reason as is your god-given American right) but the guy next door, who already has a gun, tells you that you can't buy one because he believes that a member or members of your family would use it not for defence, but for offensive reasons, and if you do buy one he will shoot your family dead.

We are talking about soveriegn nations here.

If Iran develop a science fictional 'trigger device' and told the US or anyone else to get rid of all their weaponry because they don't like your religion/politics, would you insist that your government did so?

I readily admit that governments need to grow up.

But they won't grow up until you do.

Gauche

 

[cloudy]

[applause]

Here's a scenario.

You want to buy a gun (for whatever reason as is your god-given American right) but the guy next door, who already has a gun, tells you that you can't buy one because he believes that a member or members of your family would use it not for defence, but for offensive reasons, and if you do buy one he will shoot your family dead.

We are talking about soveriegn nations here.

If Iran develop a science fictional 'trigger device' and told the US or anyone else to get rid of all their weaponry because they don't like your religion/politics, would you insist that your government did so?

I readily admit that governments need to grow up.

But they won't grow up until you do.

Gauche

Nice theory, but like some theories, it doesn't really work in real life.

It's the nature of the beast, hardwired into our race, to be competitive, territorial, and acquisitive in nature.

 

[gauchecritic]

Nice theory, but like some theories, it doesn't really work in real life.

It's the nature of the beast, hardwired into our race, to be competitive, territorial, and acquisitive in nature.

So it's one rule for us and another for them.

Gauche

 

[cloudy]

So it's one rule for us and another for them.

Gauche

No.....that's not what I said.

I was referring to the entire human race, not just this or that part.

 

[gauchecritic]

OK I read it wrong. I assumed because you dismissed my theory with 'human nature' that you agreed that it was ok to bomb the bastards because we have the bombs and they don't (yet)

my bad.

But being human we are able to not be the beast, hence my 'grow up' remark

Gauche

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I tend to believe, that if we don't act to stop Iran, Israel will. Unilaterally if need be. They have done so before when Iraq built a feeder reactor.

For you Gauche, a simple question. Iran, as do most of the arab world, refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. Your analogy dosen't work because the person who has the gun (in this case Israel) is hemmed in by hostile neighbors who have sworn to destroy them at worst or refuse to recognize their right to exist, at best.

Nuclear weapons have practically no value as defensive weapons, if you were using them in defense you would, by definition be using them on your own soil. The defensive value of Nuclear weapons lies in their value as a deterent. MAD worked during the cold war, because despite our differences, neither the West, nor the Soviets relished the idea of dying. The West puts a high value on life. The Soviets put a high value on survival.

Fundamentalist Islamics value neither life, nor survival. Iran is in the hands of a certain brand of fundamentalist Islamics. So is Pakisatn for that matter, but once someone has them, disarming them becomes pretty close to impossible. I don't think many folks of any persuasion, left, right, West, east, etc. want to see Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians. You can't really disarm those who have them, without risking a nuclear exchange. Your only option is to try and stop their proliferation.

Nuclear weapons, in the hands of a stable government are frightening enough. Nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable government is the stuff of nightmares. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fanatics is probably the first sign of the apocalypse.

Iran might be like Pakistan or India or Israel. They might develop the bomb and then simply hold them as a defensive deterent.

They might not.

And that is the great divide. You are apparently willing to give them the chance to be responsible with their nukes and not use them. I'm not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

-Colly

 

[cloudy]

<snip>...Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fanatics is probably the first sign of the apocalypse.

Iran might be like Pakistan or India or Israel. They might develop the bomb and then simply hold them as a defensive deterent.

They might not.

And that is the great divide. You are apparently willing to give them the chance to be responsible with their nukes and not use them. I'm not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

-Colly

I tend to agree with you, Colly. Acting like mature sensible adults is great and wonderful if you could only trust everyone else to act like mature, sensible adults. I don't feel the trust right now.

On another note, did anyone see that show on the History Channel last night about the bible codes? Extremely scary.

 

[gauchecritic]

Well Colly I was simply trying to answer someone who likened nuclear weaponry to handguns.

Fundamentalist Islamics is a loaded term I refuse to deal with. You could just as easily say fundamentalist capitalists and show as much useful knowledge of either.

I have my own views about the state of Isreal and the methods by which it was raised. I won't share them here for the obvious reasons.

As for all Arabs hate Jews, this is the reasoning which provoked the phrase 'grow up'. (I admit you didn't actually say that but it is what I read)

As gullilble as I am I believe there are other ways than diplomacy with which to prevent nuclear proliferation which do not include bombing people.

The mightiest power in the world was made to unshackle a nation by the simple expedient of non-cooperation. Excuse me for being pacifist.

The West puts a high value on life. The Soviets put a high value on survival.

The West put only as much value on life as benefits the stockbrokers, the Soviets were being pushed into survival. (personal histories have different perspectives) Propoganda is alive and well.

Gauche