Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

you asking me? you think I'm a 'Liberal'?

And yellow, too, no?

For the purposes of this discussion, yes. On A2K, you can be liberal or conservative. Obviously if you do not agree with me or my views, that makes you a liberal. There are more adjectives, but let's keep the definition simple for now.

Plus, you admit to reading a book by that hack Fisk... That's a liberal thing to do.

oh dear condemned out of someone else's mouth. Actually I'm a member of the British Labour Party. Their colour is Red (as in communist), but Set and you are right, the Liberal Democrats here are yellow. More on what to be done with Iran from liberal view point later...but in brief, and true to character RUN AWAY

Ok, so there is one option. Run away from the Iran issue. Who else has a solution?

McGentrix
We are between a rock and a hard place. What we should have done is years ago instead of talking about it and allowing the oil industry to set energy policy funded a Manhattan project in alternate energy research and development. At the same time force the auto industry to manufacture energy efficient vehicles. If we had the middle east would have lost it's importance and the funds to create the mischief.
What I can't understand that even now when we depend on foreign sources for 65% of our needs and our supply can be easily disrupted there still have no meaningful energy policy.

LOL! Only in McG's world ...

I believe I stated that already Nimh.



Duh.

Do you have a proposed solution for the Iran situation Nimh?

Having seen Manchester United safely through to the final, I am more inclined to give a serious answer to your question. First I cant claim to answer for liberals, the Labour Party or any other group, only myself. Second I acknowledge there is no easy answer. If there was, people in more senior positions than me (I? difficult after celebratory drinks) would be following the obvious course of action. So I think this...we should make it abundantly clear that we know the Iranians are after nuclear weapons, that they fool no one. We should pursue every possible diplomatic and legal course of action short of a military strike against Iran in an effort to pursuade them to open up their nuclear facilities to international inspection. Admittedly so far this policy has run into Iranian obfuscation and duplicity. So assuming they dont change course and enrich enough uranium hexaflouride to start producing U235 sufficient for weapons we should....


let them.

So what if Iran has nuclear weapons? Who are they going to use them against? Israel you say...well thats not what Ahmadinejad actually said. He called for the dissolution of the state of Israel, not the extermination of the Jews. Moreover should Iran be stupid enough to threaten Israel with nuclear attack, Israel would strike first with devastating results, so they wont do it.

Dont mis understand me, I thoroughly detest the idea of a bunch of religious fanatics with nuclear weapons, Amerian Israeli or Iranian. And I would like to see Iran evolve into a more democratic, more secular state.

But as Iraq shows, you cant bomb your way to democracy, you have to be a realist face facts on the ground as they are.

So, oil. Iran a nuclear armed state hostile to the US and able to threaten all the oil commerce in the region. But is it in their interests to do so? I dont think so. Ignore their military strength. Just trade with them as they want to trade with us/west.

Finally if they want to acquire nuclear weapons, ultimately they will do so. A military strike or sanctions will not stop the Iranians. They are clever determined and patient. We have to live with them as they are, not try and make them into models of ourselves, much that would be the prefered option if possible.

Eh yeah, no - that was after stating that silliness about, you know, "on A2K, you can be". Dont ever speak for a2k, McG - it makes you look silly ;-)


Nope, not really.

Why, you have a solution for all of the world's problems?

Just reading and learning (from some of the posts)...

I believe I have demonstrated time and again that I have no problem looking silly Nimh. I prefaced the comment with "For the purposes of this discussion,". I wasn't attempting to speak for A2K and I don't appreciate your scolding. If you have nothing further to add, you can sit back and continue to read.

yeah well I gave you an answer to your question McG

would appreciate an acknowledgement

noted ...


Well, thank you. I feel so much better now that I have your approval.

I thought your answer was very good. It was thought out, well reasoned and appropriate to your philosophy.

I don't agree with it, but that shouldn't matter.

Let me explain why I don't agree with it.

Nuclear weapons are too dangerous for a rogue regime like the one in Iran to own. Israel has a stable, democratic government not the oppressive theocracy that rules Iran.

Iran also has a history of supporting and protecting terrorists. Now, I doubt that Iran would allow terrorists to have nuclear weapons anymore than Pakistan, N. Korea, or China would. However, another revolution can put the weapons in tha hands of who knows who.

I have no desire to see a war between the US and Iran. I believe enough internal pressure will be exerted from the opposition parties and external pressure from the UN, Russia, China, the EU and the US the Iran will do nothing more than use the threat of nuclear weapons as a leverage tool.

We will see.

If I had to guess at a simple answer, I would say that Iran will be bribed into not creating nuclear weapons through economic negotiations.

I can't believe what I read. Let me check.

Is there anyone who thinks we should allow Iran to arm with nukes? Is there anyone who won't seriously worry that the world will be held hostage?

And, in addition to saying Israel should be wiped off the map, didn't he also ask his elected officials in a speech to imagine a world without the US?

Sadly, McG's hypothesis about Iran being bribed through economic negotiations is probably the best bet in Vegas. Kim Jong Il has left an easily read roadmap to get there.

Nimh, I think you may have missed the part about "Im NOT advocating a ground invasion at this time". That being said; your post invasion predictions do seem considerably gloomier than mine, but to no effect since "winning the peace" isn't synonymous or even necessary to end the nuclear threat or to change the regime... should the powers that be choose to do so. It isn't as if a less U.S- friendly regime were likely to pop up, is it? The likely worst case scenario would be a likeminded regime minus the potential for nuclear capability (and of course the potential side effects that you and I both mentioned).

What I do advocate, and what I believe would be the runner up wager in Vegas to McG's prediction, is to simply take out the Power Plant and deal with the repercussions of that. I am far from convinced the Israelis won't do so themselves for the sake of self-preservation if we don't. And regardless of who translates Ahmedinejad's speech, I think they would be well within their rights to do so. This is, of course after we've exhausted the pressure angles described by Steve and departing where he says to do "nothing".

My curiosity remains as to the varying opinions on whose attack on the Power Station(s?), ours or the Israelis, would do the most damage to the peace process. Without the benefit of others opinions (I've thus far heard or read none), and withholding the option to change my mind upon hearing them, I'm inclined to think the U.S. should probably be the one to do the dirty deed if indeed it proves necessary (assuming the rest of the world turns the blind eye). Not because we're under any direct threat, rather because contrary to Farmerman's earlier suggestion; WE are the 900 pound gorilla, and would be less likely to be directly retaliated against to the degree Israel probably would. I would also venture to guess Ahmedinejad's advisors are busy weighing this dilemma against the U.S. and Israel's desire to end the troubles with Palestine, as well as Iraq's tenuous progress toward democracy… and he may even be taking such an arrogant position at least in part to force a move that weakens these processes. Were I one of his advisors the phrase "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.

I have trouble believing a strong pronouncement of an ultimatum by Bush would again be treated as a bluff so soon after his last (right or wrong) decisive action. If Bush is viewed as such a ruthless bastard then surely that grants him some megalomaniacal clout and considering our disproportionate strength some measure of grudging respect. If an attack proves necessary, I hope Bush will have the common sense and decency to immediately apologize to the Iranian people for a decision he hated to make, but none the less felt compelled to. I would be unopposed to his offering assistance in any way he sees fit to compensate the Iranians for there loss. I for one, would rather see this kind of precedent set than to agree to another bribe like the hideously disastrous compromise of the agreed framework. What is now? 10,000,000 people crushed under Kim's boot while he continues to become more dangerous than ever? Let's not go down that road again, let alone provide another example of rewarding bad behavior for the other would be super-oppressors of the world.

Steve, I think your article has a good deal of merit, but its conclusions are entirely too single facetted. I don't believe the Dollar/Euro equation was the primary reason for the Iraqi action or the possible action in Iran. I do agree that it is most certainly one of the factors being considered though. Thanks for the link.

No, I didnt miss it; but I was responding, specifically, to the other part of your sentence, where you wrote that "A ground assault in Iran to remove it's leadership and threat potential would likely prove no more difficult to achieve". Yes, it was a hypothetical - but, imo - a highly erroneous (even reckless) hypothetical, hence responding.


Undoubtedly. But then your predictions on the Iraq invasion, if memory serves me right, were also considerably less gloomy than mine ... and look how that turned out.

Mind you, I'll add that whether any assault is specifically out to remove the "threat potential" - which I assume is the power plant - or Iran's "leadership" - well, that makes quite the difference. A targeted strike at one object versus the invasion that overthrowing the regime would entail ... very different scenarios, with very different chances of success, and very different scopes of consequences.

The jury hasn't yet returned to rule on my predictions on Iraq, nimh. So far I'd say Iraq is keeping right on schedule with them, but let's not do Iraq again here. (Boy, do we ever have a hard time finding common ground.)

No doubt... which is why thus far I'm only advocating the former.