US Vs Iran

Re: US Vs Iran

Seriously?
The US is up s*** creek without a paddle - doesn't matter who is president.
It is not practical to "free Iran." It is not practical to embargo them (no world agreement).
We could take out their nukes and other facilities, which we will if we have to - under either Kerry or Bush.
But that doesn't solve the problem.
I think possibly massive aid to the revolutionaries that hate the mullahs might do it....

KILL THEM ALL!!! BLOW 'EM ALL UP!!! KILL THE ARABS!!! KILL THE FRENCH AND THE KOREANS AND THE CHINESE!!! KILL THEM!!! MAKE THEM PAY!!!

Sorry. I had a George W. Bush moment.

Kerry would be different.

Re: US Vs Iran


You mean the same should happen as in Afghanistan: at first helping the People's Mujahedeen, then fighting and declaring them to be terrorists?

posted July 28, 2004, updated 1:11 p.m.

Iran increases defiance over nukes

EU trio to resume talks with Iran as report says Tehran is trying to buy nuclear "booster".

by Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com


Iran is stepping up its defiant tone heading into talks with Britain, France, and Germany that diplomats say will begin in Paris Thursday. Meanwhile, in a report Wedneseday, Reuters cites "an intelligence agency report being circulated by diplomats" as revealing that Iranian agents are "negotiating with a Russian company to buy a substance that can boost nuclear explosions in atomic weapons."
The two-page report cited "knowledgeable Russian sources" for the information, which Washington will likely point to as more proof that Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weaponry.

"Iranian middlemen ... are in the advanced stages of negotiations in Russia to buy deuterium gas," the report said. Deuterium is used as a tracer molecule in medicine and biochemistry and is used in heavy water reactors of the type Iran is building. But it can also be combined with tritium and used as a "booster" in nuclear fusion bombs of the implosion type.


Reuters reports that "envoys linked to ... the International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) said buying deuterium alone was not evidence of intent to acquire a weapons capability and "cautioned that the report appeared designed to persuade nations who are not convinced Iran wants the bomb."
Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful puposes only.

The Los Angeles Times Wednesday cites diplomats as saying Iran is once again building centrifuges that can be used to make nuclear weaponry, breaking the IAEA's seals on the equipment.
After breaking the seals, according to diplomats cited in a report from The Independent, Iran then "resumed building and testing the centrifuges, which can be used to make fissile material for a nuclear weapon."
An unnamed Western diplomat cited in an EU Business report said the removal of the seals at the Natanz nuclear center, 150 miles south of Tehran, appeared to be a "kind of maneuvering, maybe a symbol of defiance" ahead of renewed talks with the three European powers.
A tough resolution co-sponsored by Britain, France, and Germany, and passed by the IAEA in June, rebuked Tehran for failing to cooperate fully with inspectors. This angered Iran, causing it to threaten to resume uranium enrichment. But the resolution did not take the issue to the UN Security Council as the US wished.
"Iran now risks pushing Britain into the US camp," asserts The Independent.
A Times of London [subcription required] report Tuesday cited diplomatic sources as saying that Iran is "months away" from having the capability to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb.
Meanwhile, Israel is calling for more international pressure on Iran. "A military operation is not absolutely necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities," said Israeli army chief General Moshe Yaalon Wednesday. "If we look at Libya we can see that international pressure can be very effective."
As the BBC reported Tuesday, "If Israel becomes convinced that Iran is going down that road unstopped by the United Nations, it could one day take unilateral action, as it did when it bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981."
Iran is increasing its rhetoric against both Israel and the US.
The head of the Iranian army's ground forces, Brigadier General Naser Mohammadifar, said on Wednesday that his troops were "combat ready" and possessed a "martyrdom-seeking spirit", the official news agency IRNA reported.
A spokesman for Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards was quoted Monday as saying that Iran will wipe Israel "off the face of the earth" if that country dared to attack its nuclear facilities. "The United States is showing off by threatening to use its wild dog, Israel," Commander Seyed Masood Jazayeri was quoted by the Iranian Student news agency.

A picture worth a thousand words

In as much as you have implicated Tehran as a center for world terrorism and WMD what would any sane and duly threatened soveriegn country do AU? Elect John Kerry? BoohooHaHaHaHa HAAAAA! Bring our troops home from Iraq? HoooHoooHAAAAHaaaa! Ask The UN to intervene? HoHo.Ha Ha Ha Ha! Blame Israel Again? HeeHeeHoHoHo! Sic the ACLU on anyone who says the word "AARAB"?HeeHeeHoHo HoHoHo!

Re: US Vs Iran


Bush'd likely strike another preemptive move rather than negotiate an end to Iran's weapons program. However, Iran is five times larger, a rugged mountainous country of sixty-five million people. Probably they would defend themselves. Perhaps even reconstitute their nuclear program in deep tunnels carved out of the country's rugged mountains, impervious to bombardment. To insure military success, the U.S. might be compelled to launch commando assaults with special forces, or even invade and occupy the country. They might return fire, in kind, turn on U.S. troops the same depleted uranium weapons that the U.S. has been using with such horrible effect on others. Then George W. Bush eyeball-to-eyeball with Vladimir Putin, the obvious supplier, and who knows, possibly with Pakistani Pervez Musharraf, nuclear-armed tyrants (unlike Saddam Hussein) and capable of defending themselves. Things would escalate, events could spin out of control...


Kerry has come out and said he would fight the war on terror in other nations. http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_10572.shtml His first step would be this: "The Iranians claim they're simply trying to meet domestic energy needs. We should call their bluff, and organize a group of states that will offer the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they can't divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this, their true motivations will be clear." http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0601.html

Do I think the U.S. can/should take either of these actions? Yes, we could take either. I can't predict the outcome of either, but am reminded of recent history. Any of you remember the hostages in Iran? Carter's diplomatic efforts which were fruitless? Then along came Reagan... He made threats and they backed down. He invaded Grenada. He built missiles and pointed them at the Soviet Union, and they did the same back at us until they went broke. The Berlin Wall came down. He acted like a crazy man, but was incredibly popular. Maybe Bush is emulating Reagan? Maybe it'll be all for the best in the end? Naahh...

This means in English what, please?

Walter Hinteler
He knows the words it's the music he has trouble with. In essence he can speak English and knows the words but like Bush he can't put them together into coherent thought.

Iran and North Korea continue work, despite months of diplomatic pressure 
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine American intelligence officials and outside nuclear experts have concluded that the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts with European and Asian allies have barely slowed the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea over the past year, and that both have made significant progress..
In a tacit acknowledgment that the diplomatic initiatives with European and Asian allies have failed to slow the programs, senior administration and intelligence officials say they are seeking ways to step up unspecified covert actions intended, in the words of one official, "to disrupt or delay as long as we can" Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear weapon..
But other experts, including former Clinton administration officials, caution that while covert efforts have been tried in the past, both the Iranian and North Korean programs are increasingly self-sufficient, largely thanks to the aid they received from the network built by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former leader of the Pakistani bomb program..
"It's a much harder thing to accomplish today," said one senior American intelligence official, "than it would have been in the '90s.".
Khan's efforts have also worked against the Bush administration in North Korea. A new assessment of North Korea has come in one of three classified reports commissioned by the Bush administration earlier this year from the American intelligence community..
Circulated last month, the report concluded that nearly 20 months of toughened sanctions, including ending a major energy program, and several rounds of negotiations involving four of North Korea's neighbors had not slowed the North's efforts to develop plutonium weapons, and that a separate, parallel program to make weapons from highly enriched uranium was also moving forward, though more slowly..
The desire to pursue a broader strategy against Iran's nuclear ambitions is driven in part, officials say, by increasingly strong private statements by Israeli officials that they will not tolerate the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon and may be forced to consider military action similar to the attack against a nuclear reactor in Iraq two decades ago if Tehran is judged to be on the verge of making a weapon..
In contrast, North Korea's neighbors are seeking stability first and disarmament as a longer-term goal, diplomats from the region say..
"The evidence suggests that Iran is trying to keep all of its options open," said Robert Gates, the director of central intelligence under President George H.W. Bush..
Gates recently headed a detailed study of Iran that was critical of what it called the administration's failure to engage the country..
"They are trying to stay just within their treaty obligations" while producing highly enriched uranium, said Gates, "and I think they can go with a weapon whenever they want to.".
Over the past few weeks, five senior officials from the administration and Asian and European nations, with varying access to the intelligence about the Iranian and North Korean programs, were interviewed about the status of those programs. Not surprisingly, their judgments about the progress the two countries have made were not always in accord..
The new report on North Korea, which has circulated among senior U.S. officials and been described to some allies and to The New York Times, appears to have been written far more cautiously than the National Intelligence Estimate that erroneously described advanced weapons programs in Iraq. It describes in detail vast gaps in American knowledge. For example, it acknowledges that the whereabouts of North Korea's stockpile of more than 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods has been a mystery since early 2003, but also concludes that the North has had plenty of time to reprocess the rods into enough fuel for six to eight additional weapons. North Korea is judged to have two to six weapons already. For its part, Iran has begun to assemble the necessary ingredients and perhaps the same crude, Chinese-origin bomb design that the Khan network sold to Libya - and may be just a few years away, intelligence experts have said. Taken together, the intelligence conclusions pose both security and political challenges for President George W. Bush..
Bush has said he would not "tolerate" either country becoming a nuclear power, ignoring, at least publicly, the near certainty that North Korea has already reached that status. But he has never defined that term, or set deadlines for progress. He is already under attack by the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, for allowing both countries to spring forward in their programs while the White House concentrated on the one member of the "axis of evil," Iraq, which turned out to have virtually no evidence of a continuing program..
Bush has said little about the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs in recent months, in sharp contrast to his regular recitations about the danger posed by Iraq in the period before the war last year..
"It's very frustrating," said one former official who left the Bush administration recently and who believes that the administration has failed to draw clear "red lines" beyond which North Korea would not be allowed to expand its arsenal. The official noted that Bush and his aides have been talking as if North Korea and Iran would follow the model of Libya, which disarmed earlier this year in an effort to reintegrate its economy with the West. But, the official argued, Iran does not need to do that because it has robust trade with Europe, and North Korea still receives considerable aid from China..
On July 31, Iran announced that it was resuming the production of centrifuges needed to produce highly enriched uranium, though it said it was still "suspending" actual enrichment activities. While the United States has threatened to take the issue to the UN Security Council, it has yet to win support from many allies..
North Korea has publicly rejected a new U.S. initiative to allow international aid to flow gradually to the country in return for speedy disarmament and giving inspectors the right to examine any suspected site..
Several of Bush’s aides have said they expect little concrete progress before the presidential election. The Iranians appear to be betting that Kerry, if elected, would talk directly to their leaders. .
The New York Times Rice says world watches Iran .
The U.S. national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said Sunday that the world finally was "worried and suspicious" over the Iranians' intentions and was determined not to let Tehran produce a nuclear weapon, The Associated Press reported from Washington..
Rice also said the Bush administration had seen a new international willingness to act against Iran's nuclear program. She credited the changed attitude to the Americans' insistence that Iran's effort has put the world in peril.

Well Boys the Jig is up. It only takes a few moments to detect that this partisan ruse you are staging has pre-determined assumptions,judgements and outcomes. IE: the US loses the "War On Terrorism" to pacifists and appeasers and to failing European countries going down for the last time in a bleary reverie of past grandeur hanging desperately to a wet dream of "ONE WORLD ORDER".
Sorry Kiddies! It's not going to happen...no matter how many stooges and Yes-girls you drag into this "civilized, online forum".

Chuckster
OK Iran thumbs it nose at the US, UN and EU and North Korea says in essence screw you regarding the development or possession of Nuclear weapons. In your opinion What should the US do, what can the US do?