Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Re: Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

freedom4free wrote:

As was the case with Iraq, Bush has yet to produce any evidence that Iran is building anything other than a power station.

There is the fact that they were building a secret enrichment facility.

freedom4free wrote:

and, like Iraq, Bush cannot explain why even with nuclear arms, Iran is any kind of threat to the United States,

They are a threat to Israel, who are our friends and allies.

freedom4free wrote:

remains historically the only nation to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population.

Ah, no. Civilians were not the target of the A-bombs.

Not saying that it wasn't an indiscriminate attack and a war crime, it certainly was both.

But civilians were not the target.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The fact remans despite Bush's grandstanding. The US is in no position on it's own to take on Iran.

Sure we could. Just a brief little bombing campaign should do nicely.

Personally, I'd rather see Israel do it, but we are capable of bombing Iran too.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

..

I thought your answer was very good...

...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.

Thanks and I hope you are right.

Maybe the Russian approach is the right one

from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1694965,00.html

Quote:

The president, (Putin)... also put forward Russia's proposed solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis and the broader problem of nuclear proliferation. Iran reacted positively yesterday to Moscow's offer to enrich uranium for it and enable it to run a peaceful nuclear energy programme without generating its own fuel cycle

They hold the presidency of the G8 so why not let them sort it?

But perhaps its too late if we are already bombing Iran...

from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1694991,00.html

Quote:

Tehran blames Britain and US for Ahvaz bombs

Associated Press in Tehran
Thursday January 26, 2006

Iran's president and foreign minister yesterday blamed Britain and the US for bombings that killed at least nine people in the south-western city of Ahvaz, capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province bordering Iraq...

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

...a brief little bombing campaign should do nicely.

for who oralloy? You? You're friends in the armaments industries? The secular reformers in Iran? Israel?

Thats the most dangerous ill informed and above all smug statement I've read on a2k for a long time. Its dangerous because it will strengthen the theocratic regime. Its ill informed because you should know that Irans nuclear facilities are widespread and probably invulnerable to conventional weapons. You are advocating using tactical nuclear weapons, thats not a nice little bombing campaign. And its smug because you think America is in the driving seat, that you can do anything you want. Well on this one it is the US who are the supplicants

from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1688938,00.html

Quote:

At this very moment, US officials in Baghdad are on their knees begging Iran-backed Shia politicians and militias to help them get out of Iraq.

and

Quote:

Iran is the regional superstate. If ever there were a realpolitik demanding to be "hugged close" it is this one, however distasteful its leader and his centrifuges. If you cannot stop a man buying a gun, the next best bet is to make him your friend, not your enemy.

0 Replies

Re: Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

oralloy wrote:

freedom4free wrote:
As was the case with Iraq, Bush has yet to produce any evidence that Iran is building anything other than a power station.

There is the fact that they were building a secret enrichment facility.

freedom4free wrote:
and, like Iraq, Bush cannot explain why even with nuclear arms, Iran is any kind of threat to the United States,

They are a threat to Israel, who are our friends and allies.

freedom4free wrote:
remains historically the only nation to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population.

Ah, no. Civilians were not the target of the A-bombs.

Not saying that it wasn't an indiscriminate attack and a war crime, it certainly was both.

But civilians were not the target.

Of the statements you made in this post, only the last one is a downright untruth.

Certainly, the main target at Nagasaki was the shipping docks but from atomic tests the US carried out it was clear that the A-bombs were overkill.

Hiroshima, had no real strategic value whatsoever. Nothing was built there. There were no military bases there. The attacks on Hiroshima at least was targeted at civilians.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The jury hasn't yet returned to rule on my predictions on Iraq, nimh.

Well, I gotta admit that I probably shouldnt trust my memory on what poster exactly said what two years ago, fersure.

But I'd say that although the jury is still out on the final outcome of "Iraq", the events in the meantime have surely proved the predictions of those who derided 'defeatist' warnings wrong, about how hard or easy getting there was gonna be...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The jury hasn't yet returned to rule on my predictions on Iraq, nimh.

Well, I gotta admit that I probably shouldnt trust my memory on what poster exactly said what two years ago, fersure.

Normally, I'd trust your memory over my own, but I'm pretty sure about this one. I expected the war to be relatively simple (which it was, as far as wars go) and the peace to be difficult. Perhaps, not quite this difficult. When you separate the winning of the war from that of the peace I don't really get how anyone would think Iran would be so different. They were basically in a stalemate with Saddam's pitiful forces. And even in the peace there wouldn't be the minority who feel like their birth-right to oppress the majority has been stolen at least not to the same extent as in Iraq. Insurgency can be expected in every country where religious fanatics will blow themselves up to defend their heinous beliefs. The moral majority in each still deserves better than the rotten lot in life they've been given so far. With technology so far ahead of humanity, I assert that the window of opportunity to deliver better is sliding further shut every day.

nimh wrote:

But I'd say that although the jury is still out on the final outcome of "Iraq", the events in the meantime have surely proved the predictions of those who derided 'defeatist' warnings wrong, about how hard or easy getting there was gonna be...

This is definitely not where we'll find that common ground. I heard defeatists suggest everything from the world-body backing Iraq "the world won't stand by and watch this sh!t happen, mark my words" (my very, very intelligent Bro-in-law (ask Soz if you don't believe me) to "there would be an outright civil war" to "this is going to make our losses in Vietnam look like a joke" and even the occasional nut suggested that if the U.S. goes ahead without U.N. approval it will be WWIII. Yes, I know I'm bringing up the extremes, but only because I tire of hearing how "pro-war thinkers all thought our soldiers would be greeted with parades and flowers thrown at their feet."

Now despite all the trouble, and there's been plenty, Iraqis did show up at the polls repeatedly, on schedule (which I think I remember you predicting wouldn't happen)... in per capita numbers that rival our own, despite the fact they had to walk though bombs and bullets and all manner of other hideous threats to get there. This is neither indicative of a people who miss their dictator nor of a people who'll soon trade their newfound freedom in for a new one. I believe Iraqi pride is as strong as ever it was. Now I'll grant you a full blown civil war is still a distinct possibility, and if so, so be it. How else do an oppressed people throw off the reins of tyranny? Even in that worst case scenario the predictable result should be, at least, freedom for the many instead of the few. I wholeheartedly believe history (even Iraqi history) will eventually read the United States did Iraq a tremendous favor (despite characterizing Bush as an incompetent lout)... not unlike what the French once did for us. Now, if they manage to get a full blown constitution enacted in the next decade; they'll still be matching our performance. Yep, the jury is still out but I'm still confident they'll come back with a just verdict.

(Damn, and here I was planning on avoiding this... oh well)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sadly, McG's hypothesis about Iran being bribed through economic negotiations is probably the best bet in Vegas.

Why "sadly"? And you say "bribing" is if that was a bad thing...

Going along with capitalist ideals, helping them build a reactor (They don't have one yet, as far as I know. Just an enrichment facility.) would probably be more economic than waging war. Especially as "boots on the ground" are a most costly thing. Sure, I agree, the US are in a position to invade yet another country. But it wouldn't be another nice armchair war. It would involve everybody. Think about the cost. Think about personnel. Would there be a draft? Who would pay for it? It would cost at least as much as the Iraq war, wouldn't it?

So back to the bribing option. It would probably even be more economic than some "limited" air strikes - given the political fallout. And I doubt the feasibility of those air strikes. This is not the Osirak reactor. The Iranian nuclear program consists of facilities spread all over thre country. Mostly underground. And twist it any way you want, but Iran has some significant oil and gas resources that even the United States depend on. Come to think about it, the US depends on them probably more than most other countries.

So we want Iran to close down its enrichment facilities again. Somebody else do the uranium enrichment. Case closed. What would be wrong with that?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sadly, McG's hypothesis about Iran being bribed through economic negotiations is probably the best bet in Vegas.

Why "sadly"? And you say "bribing" is if that was a bad thing...

I believe that was amply answered at the end of that post with my opinion of the Agreed Framework in North Korea. Shortly before the Agreed Framework was agreed to, there were plans on the table to bomb the Yongbyon? power plant and end the nuclear threat from Kim Jong Il once and for all. At risk was Seoul, which would have been a hell of a gamble, but I've never thought that Kim would have went through with that anyway. Alternately, we paid bribe money to seal the fate of countless millions of North Koreans, as if they are less deserving of life then South Koreans or you or I. That was the price of paying the terrorists ransom so far. Now or soon he'll have the ability to treat Japan as a hostage as well as Seoul and to what end? Not only do we not know if Kim will ever go nuts (so far the consensus is he's just faking it), but we set a precedent that bad behavior and terrorist-like threats will be rewarded, if you can make them on a grand enough scale. The United States, the proverbial 900 pound gorilla, has cried wolf so many times, the crazies were taking it for granted. With two massive strikes (Afghanistan and Iraq) delivered in a timely fashion after the appropriate threats and ultimatums ignored, I theorize that would-be Saddam's (now a behind bars nothing) are probably more likely to take our threats seriously. This too, can save lives. Note: I would agree that bribing, rather than bullying may be less costly in the short run, but as soon as I glance at North Korea I seriously doubt it in the long run. Iran's president doesn't have the grand threat Kim enjoyed, yet. Nor does he have total power over his own country the way Kim did and does. My belief is he would (will?) back down at or before ultimatum stage.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sadly, McG's hypothesis about Iran being bribed through economic negotiations is probably the best bet in Vegas.

Why "sadly"? And you say "bribing" is if that was a bad thing...

I believe that was amply answered at the end of that post with my opinion of the Agreed Framework in North Korea. Shortly before the Agreed Framework was agreed to, there were plans on the table to bomb the Yongbyon? power plant and end the nuclear threat from Kim Jong Il once and for all. At risk was Seoul, which would have been a hell of a gamble, but I've never thought that Kim would have went through with that anyway. Alternately, we paid bribe money to seal the fate of countless millions of North Koreans, as if they are less deserving of life then South Koreans or you or I. That was the price of paying the terrorists ransom so far. Now or soon he'll have the ability to treat Japan as a hostage as well as Seoul and to what end? Not only do we not know if Kim will ever go nuts (so far the consensus is he's just faking it), but we set a precedent that bad behavior and terrorist-like threats will be rewarded, if you can make them on a grand enough scale. The United States, the proverbial 900 pound gorilla, has cried wolf so many times, the crazies were taking it for granted. With two massive strikes (Afghanistan and Iraq) delivered in a timely fashion after the appropriate threats and ultimatums ignored, I theorize that would-be Saddam's (now a behind bars nothing) are probably more likely to take our threats seriously. This too, can save lives. Note: I would agree that bribing, rather than bullying may be less costly in the short run, but as soon as I glance at North Korea I seriously doubt it in the long run. Iran's president doesn't have the grand threat Kim enjoyed, yet. Nor does he have total power over his own country the way Kim did and does. My belief is he would (will?) back down at or before ultimatum stage.

0 Replies

Well, I'm not sure NK and Iran can be compared - precisely for the reasons you mention. It's neither a dictatorship, nor has Ahmadinejad total control. Actually, I'd say he has not much control at any rate. When it comes to the nuclear question, the president is probably just the the guy in plain view, the puppet. I'd say that decisions would probably be made by Ayatollah Khamenei, nevermind the angry speeches the president is giving.

AND as Iran was claiming that they want a purely civilian nuclear program, why not let them have one? It's a completely justified ambition. Wouldn't you agree? And after all, that's not the dangerous part of the current situation at all.

Plus Iran is doing quite well, in comparison with NK. Whereas probably hundreds of thousands of North Koreans died of hunger, Iran (as a country) is making nice profits by selling gas and oil. Iran (as a country) is just not in a position where it needs to blackmail anybody.

The question is rather: how crazy is Ahmadinejad? How far would he go trying to cater to his electorate? Would it be sufficient for him if he could claim having brought Iran into the nuclear age if that is achieved merely by building power plants and having uranium enriched elsewhere?

What worries me here is that even El Baradei is worried. That we are actually at the ultimatum stage (the deadline being March 6). That El Baradei didn't exclude the possibility of using force if Iran was not complying. That's in sharp contrast to the stance he took in the Iraq affair. So if I want to stay consistent and use the IAEA analysis as a benchmark for Iraq, I should be really worried about Iran now.

So, in summary: I'm not worried about "bribing" Iran. And allowing or denying Iran a civilian nuclear program won't change the quality of life for the average Iranian in no way. What I'm worried about is Ahmadinejad. Let's hope he says more crazy things and alienates more of his own people. And let's watch this nuclear program.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

oralloy wrote:
>>...a brief little bombing campaign should do nicely.

>for who oralloy? You? You're friends in the armaments industries? The secular reformers in Iran? Israel?

For Israel.

I regard them as America's friend and ally, and I think the president of Iran is a deranged lunatic who really wants to nuke Israel.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

>Its ill informed because you should know that Irans nuclear facilities are widespread and probably invulnerable to conventional weapons. You are advocating using tactical nuclear weapons, thats not a nice little bombing campaign.

We developed bunker busters back in the 1991 gulf war. These can take out any of Iran's underground facilities without any need for nuclear weapons.

About a year ago, we gave Israel a hundred of them.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0427-05.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-28-israel-bombs_x.htm

About a year before that, we gave Israel a large variety of smart bombs that can be used to hit above-ground targets:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=479647

(Note: the Haaretz article is incorrect when it refers to the 500 penetrator bombs as bunker busters.)

0 Replies

Re: Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Hiroshima, had no real strategic value whatsoever. Nothing was built there. There were no military bases there. The attacks on Hiroshima at least was targeted at civilians.

That is incorrect.

Hiroshima was Japan's largest military town, and was the port that most of their soldiers shipped out of when they went on their waves of conquest.

Hiroshima's large military districts held tens of thousands of combat troops, which gave it the highest soldier/civilian ratio of any Japanese city.

And Hiroshima held the headquarters of the Japanese Second General Army, whose job it was to repel any invasion of the southern half of the Japanese home islands (which is were we were likely to begin our invasion had it come to that).

0 Replies

OE, I'm not opposed to Iran having nuclear power under the Russian plan providing its concrete that the IAEA is granted unconditional access to monitor that everything goes according to the agreement. Frankly, that would only help us to target the hot-spots if indeed it ever became necessary. (If I'm not mistaken, Bush echoed a similar sentiment this morning, so the dollar/Euro argument is almost mute.)

What I would oppose; is the United States backing down and offering the same, free of charge, as in the Agreed Framework. This I believe only serves to demonstrate the potential rewards for bad behavior and terrorist-like threats.

Whether or not Ahmedinejad is satisfied with such an arrangement should provide the answer to what his true intentions are (and give a hint at his level of sanity.) At any rate; I do think it crucial to maintain a WMD-free Iran... for the time being at least.

0 Replies

IMO whether Hiroshima was or was not a large military center was entirely irrelevant. What the dropping of the bomb did was to persuade the Japanese to surrender. And thus it served it's purpose and was entirely justified.

0 Replies

I tend to agree, AU... but never anymore without the question popping into my head; what's the fundamental difference between that or for that matter the firebombing of Dresden and what Bin Laden did to us, if you look at it from his perspective? No matter how we justify it, the fact remains we exterminated the mother load of civilians. This is among the many reasons I don't object to my government spending the best part of half a trillion dollars a year on the most technologically advanced military ever assembled. I, for one, don't mind paying for the improved accuracy or the overwhelming deterrent.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

IMO whether Hiroshima was or was not a large military center was entirely irrelevant. What the dropping of the bomb did was to persuade the Japanese to surrender. And thus it served it's purpose and was entirely justified.

I am for the bombing myself, given the circumstances of the time the decision was made.

But there would be a difference if it were really aimed at civilians.

Causing such widespread destruction while aiming for legitimate target was "indiscriminate bombing", a war crime.

But had we actually been targeting civilians, that would have been a crime against humanity, which is even worse.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I tend to agree, AU... but never anymore without the question popping into my head; what's the fundamental difference between that or for that matter the firebombing of Dresden and what Bin Laden did to us, if you look at it from his perspective?

Osama was deliberately targeting civilians, which makes his act a crime against humanity.

I'd say the UK's acts in Dresden probably amounted to a crime against humanity too, as I don't think they were targeting any legitimate targets when they started the firestorm.

0 Replies

Or also like the firebombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities by the US.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

I'd say the UK's acts in Dresden probably amounted to a crime against humanity too, as I don't think they were targeting any legitimate targets when they started the firestorm.

I'll concede Dresden was illegal if you will concede Nagasaki was unnecessary.

0 Replies

Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know