Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

I disagree with your formulation far cry from "free" elections. I don't think the problem lies in the elections as such. The problem is that the elected government, no matter if that would be a progressive or a conservative administration, has not a lot of factual power. At least not if the the "Leader" or the "Leadership Council" don't agree with the governments course (the Iranian constitution says "Upon the order of the Leader, the Nation's Exigency Council shall meet at any time the Guardian Council judges a proposed bill of the Islamic Consultative Assembly to be against the principles of Shariah or the Constitution, and the Assembly is unable to meet the expectations of the Guardian Council.")

On the other hand, if people kept on voting for progressive parties, I believe gradual (but efficient) change towards a more secular society should be possible.

I don't follow your disagreement with my use of "far cry from free elections" but it's of no consequence since we agree the Mullahs are ultimately in control. I take issue with fettered elections because they provide a false conclusion of public majority approval. It may well be that Ahmadinejad could win a truly "free" election, but since we can't know, I have trouble holding the Iranian public accountable for his hate mongering.

How can the Iranian election be called fair and democratic? The Mullah's would not allow the moderates and reformers to stand for election. That was like going to a Chinese restaurant and being handed a menu where all the choices were fried rice.

Guess you aspire to the status of smart-ass, though you fell well short.

Yes, I agree. The elections weren't free in that regard that many liberal or progressive candidates were blocked from running for office.

All I'm basically saying is that in spite of the mullahs, Iran isn't a dictatorship. That would be an insult to every true dictator. You only have to look at Ahmadinejad's immediate predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, to see what might be possible in Iran.

Occum Bill, I agree it was a nice step when Iraqis got to vote, I also agree that for now the elected leaders have no choice but to accept US help with security.

However, that was not my point. My point is that in the election, they elected a more religious leaders behind the power in their government with close to Iran. No laws can pass if it contradicts undisputed laws of Islam. They have Shiite and Kurdish militias which have greater control of the country than their army does. This is what was elected in government. We all know what was elected in Palestine and there have been other elections which have had less than US desired results. So why would Iran be any different if they were allowed to have free elections?

On the Iran situation:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_iran



___

We have no quarrel there, then, because I never claimed otherwise.

Iran, Iraq and Palestine are 3 completely different peoples, Revel, each with their own unique pasts and problems. There are no Pro-US clauses in any proposed constitution other than our own. Free elections, freedom itself, has nothing to do with us and the fact that the people of Iraq voted their own conscience instead of ours should put your mind at ease. Gone, seem to be the accusations of a puppet government so frequently forwarded by your political peers in the not so distant past. Truly free people have a right to make choices we don't like.

If people choose to elect a Muslim government, Allah be with them... I'll be satisfied with the fact they're given the choice. Iraqi citizens in general could not be held accountable for the actions of their leader insofar as despite many efforts they were unable to dispatch him themselves. Same goes for the good people of Iran since their only choice was in which hardliner to elect. Not so the people of Palestine any longer as they've exercised their free vote and determined for themselves who should lead them. Free people of the world have not only the choice to change their leadership, but also accountability for their choices. Here in the US, the most hated people on earth, we are collectively responsible for the actions of the leaders we choose to put in power. As your dismay with that choice illustrates; democracy isn't a magic wand that rights the wrongs for all people. It is, however, the best system to date for granting a fair shot at choosing the freedoms that suit you. Would you have it any other way?

i enjoyed the last 2 posts. revel and bill both make some great points.

which leads me to the question of; if the middle east continues to freely elect islamic extremists to their national leadership, what, if anything, should or could be the united state's response ?

what i mean is, do we have any reason to believe that the islamic extremists will be content to hold sway over there own lands? or will they further embrace the bin laden model of evangelism at the point of the sword ?

That's the rub, DTOM. Democracy offers the masses a reasonably peaceful transition away from extremism... or not. Should they choose the latter, Allah be with them, because few powers in this world will be. People forget that Hitler won an election to get his job, too. My position is to give the good Muslim people of the world an honest shot. Popular theory holds; it is only a minority that subscribe to the extremists views and intent, and I wholeheartedly concur (or at least badly want to). Should they take the opportunity to prove this assumption false, however, then what choice does the world have but to crush those who seek to destroy them?

The drumbeat of war is getting louder everyday, as Ahmadinejad rejects a very reasonable Russian compromise and in the mean time the Muslim masses are losing their minds over a friggin cartoon. It doesn't look as promising as it did even a few days ago.

Occom Bill, I have nothing to add to your last post addressed to me as I mostly agree with it. Kind of surprised.

edited to correct spelling, sorry for mispelling it earlier,

yup. iran told the iaea to take a walk. bummer.

i can't help but think that this is all a fine example of why the founders were in favor of a secular democracy.

I wouldn't try to "help but think" that, since we have every reason to believe that was precisely their purpose, despite being a very religious people themselves. It may well be that the tolerance rooted in this separation is the only possible peaceful solution... other than iron fisted rule. Unfortunately, this theory doesn't bode well for the immediate future of the Middle East. I'm no bigot, but I do recognize the very real possibility that the better half of half a billion people have their heads stuck too far up their collective a$$ to recognize this simple truth. I'm forced to wonder if there's even been sufficient unbiased education to afford a reasonable chance at recognition of this basic principle. Though shakier than ever; my personal belief is that the basic human desire for self-serving self determination (not to mention self-preservation) will eventually trump the collective righteousness of spoon fed religion. I hope so and I hope soon because in the nuclear age of technology, it's becoming harder each day to continue to offer the benefit of the doubt. The risks are simply becoming too great.

While many people are clamoring about the similarities between pre-war Iraq and Iran; too many seem to be missing some important fundamental (and Fundamental) differences:

Saddam shared few ideological beliefs with the terrorists of 911 who apparently seek to destroy our way of life. Not so Ahmadinejad, nor those who cleared his path to power.

The world's collective intelligence including IAEA doubted Iraq's potential for WMD (at least to some extent). Not so in the current Iranian crisis. Ahmadinejad's current rhetoric and actions leave little room for doubt.

Many suggested that post-war Iraq would be ripe for a Muslim Fundamentalist led regime. Iran is already there.

Iraq was known to have little relative potential to harm its neighbors… when compared to Iran today.

Where Saddam's anti-Israeli rhetoric seemed to be manufactured to appeal to the Muslim masses; Ahmadinejad's seems quite genuine.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that absent massive protests against Ahmadinejad from within Iran, to the point that it's made clear that the greater populace desires a change internally, Iranian's will soon suffer the consequences of his rhetoric and actions.

One of the more troubling differences lies in the fact that where Saddam was a largely disliked secularist, Ahmadinejad is representative of the Muslim Fundamentalist movement that seeks to destroy us. Does this mean allies against us will pour in in far greater numbers than in Iraq? I seriously doubt any nation would openly declare allegiance to the point of joining forces in an actual war, but how many will bend over backwards to assist and how many compatriots will volunteer for the fight?

I further wonder if there is a coherent understanding by the enemies of the United States, that they can only achieve strategic compromises at best. Do the holy warriors understand that any amount of force they can muster can be matched a thousand fold and that only justification (as defined by us, not them) rather than ability restrains the most lethal arsenal the world has ever seen?

I've always believed that most of those that rise to power in most every political structure, whether it be in capitalist, communist or the Catholic church; are, deep down, self serving would-be capitalists that are mostly out to gather power unto themselves. For this reason; I doubt many Fundamentalist Extremist leaders would truly welcome the apocalypse, knowing how very badly they're out gunned. Allah be with them if I'm wrong.

Do you have any references to this assertion, thanks.

What a bizarre point to take issue with. Do you know he considers Iran's to be the government for the world? Do you know he is widely considered to be Khamenei's protégé? Did you read his post election speech?Really InfraBlue, that doesn't remind you of anyone else we know?

You can brush up on the fella yourself easily enough. You don't need me for that. I recommend you start with Wikipedia.

<This thread intentionally interrupted to announce that the greatest team in NFL history is the Pittsburgh Steelers. Yeah, that's right, they are the all-time badasses of the NFL, baby, don't doubt it, beeeyatches!!!!!>

This is a digression. But it would appear that religion is the infection and the path to Armageddon and the distruction of our planet.

Only if we let it. The causes of conflict that might lead to our demise are to be found in this world, not in philosophic debate about the next.

WASHINGTON Hours after the United States and Europe prevailed in a contest over finally turning Iran's history of clandestine nuclear activity over to the United Nations Security Council, President George W. Bush issued a statement from his ranch saying that the overwhelming vote showed that "the world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." 
But even some of Bush's own advisers say that may prove an overstatement. 
Behind the diplomatic maneuvering, many of the diplomats and nuclear experts involved in the West's effort acknowledge that a more realistic goal now is to delay the day that Iran joins the nuclear club. Stopping the program cold, they believe, is highly unlikely, and probably impossible. 
"Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got there, and they didn't have Iran's money or the engineering expertise," said a senior official who is instrumental in putting together American strategy. 
"Sooner or later, it's going to happen. Our job is to make sure it's later," he added, in hopes that by that time, a changed or different government is in power in Tehran. 
Partly, that is the newfound realism of an administration that has learned some hard lessons in Iraq, and is no longer quite so eager to talk about pre-empting looming threats. 
But partly it rises from a growing understanding of the damage wrought by the clandestine nuclear network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear engineer who, operating beneath the radar of American intelligence agencies, began supplying the Iranians with designs, prototypes and equipment in the late 1980s. 
By the time Khan and the Iranians split in the mid-1990s, apparently in a dispute over money and advanced technology, Iran was already well along the learning curve. 
And the evidence assembled by United Nations inspectors in the past two years - in inspections that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says will now end - indicates that the country has assembled an impressive network of new suppliers, built the basic facilities it needs, and identified the critical technologies it must master. 
Yet by virtually all estimates, that has not been enough: The Iranians still have several years of work ahead of them, a judgment restated last week by John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. 
The painstaking process of actually manufacturing the material to make weapon-usable fuel - by enriching uranium or reprocessing spent plutonium from power reactors - is a lot harder than it looks in the movies. There is some evidence the Iranians have run into technological roadblocks, but it is hard to say for how long they will delay it. 
"The obstacles give us some time, and you have to hope that we use it well, so that the current domestic consensus in favor of the nuclear program in Iran will break," said Robert Einhorn, who served as a nonproliferation official in the Clinton administration and the early days of the Bush administration. 
"The vote yesterday was impressive," he said, referring to the vote Saturday by the International Atomic Energy Agency board, to report Iran to the UN Security Council, "and now it is about making Iran realize that none of this is cost-free - and that the result will be a change in the character of the regime, or at least a conclusion that this is a losing proposition for them." But the concern among some officials inside the White House, the State Department and the intelligence agencies is that the current Iranian leadership's reaction to the vote will be to speed ahead. 
The administration knows that after the debacle over the faulty intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, someone else will have to take the lead in assessing how close Iran is getting to a weapon. In a revealing comment, Bush acknowledged as much at a news conference on Dec. 19. 
"Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, well, the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence in Iran?" He added later that "the best place to make the case now is still in the councils of government." 
Bush did that, sending aides and diplomats to foreign capitals armed with partly declassified evidence gathered from an Iranian laptop computer. The evidence was hardly a "slam dunk," to use the much-derided term that George Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, reportedly used to describe the case against Iraq. 
But it pointed, with some murkiness, to an effort to redesign a missile so that a weapon could be fitted into a nose cone. Iran dismissed the evidence as outrageous when IAEA inspectors brought it to them, but has yet to explain what its engineers were doing. 
What really changed in the past few days were the declarations by the IAEA itself, including officials who were openly skeptical about Bush's case against Iraq three years ago. For years the agency and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, stayed publicly neutral on the question of whether Iran's program was peaceful, as Tehran insists, or intended to build a weapon. 
ElBaradei, whom the Bush administration tried to remove from his job only a year ago, circulated a report that pointed to links between Iran's ostensibly civilian nuclear program and its military. 
The report characterized designs inspectors found in Iran, supplied by Khan's network, as clearly "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components." Those designs sketched out how to perfect uranium spheres, a tell-tale shape that can be imploded to trigger a nuclear explosion. 
Those discoveries were so helpful in bolstering the case that Russia and China, Egypt, India and Yemen, among others, voted against Iran. 
But the evidence also underscores the degree to which this has become a race against time. 
Moreover, few see that Washington has many options. 
"Can you delay the onset of the Iranian bomb? Maybe," said Charles Ferguson, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. But even taking military action against Iran's known nuclear sites, he said, could "stimulate them to cross the nuclear rubicon because you've showed your hand, you've showed that you're willing to use military force to try to damage their nuclear program." 
That may be where the debate is headed. Bush, in his public statements, has begun reiterating that all his options are on the table, words that have shades of his comments about Iraq three years ago. But he has been deliberately less fiery, mindful of not fracturing the coalition he has built. His aides, in contrast, have been sent out in recent days with stronger messages about what the world would look like if Iran had a bomb to wield. 
And in Munich this weekend, Senator John McCain, staking out a position that is more hawkish than anything the Bush administration has said in public, put the dilemma this way: "There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran." 
 

Well put.

There exists a very deep fear, and perhaps hatred for religion that is suggested by Au's posting, and, I believe, is misplaced.

The infection that will lead us to Armageddon is lust for power, and while religious thought and religious institutions are often used (the former corrupted, the latter hijacked) to assist would be gods on earth, the hunger is not born of religion.

To the degree that religion is used to serve a man or woman's lust for power, it is obviously the fault of that man or woman, but we should not avoid assigning accountability to those who must participate in the travesty for it to be, in any way, successful.

Corrupt religion is not a virus against which we have no immune system defenses. If and when a priest, pope, elder, imam, mullah, monk, rabbi, shaman, pastor or other clergical authority orders people to burn heretics at the stake, or wear a vest of explosives into a crowded shopping mall, religion does not and cannot force them to obey.

One can even argue that, to a large extent, the major religions of the world have provided mankind with a means to codify the very principles which we hope would inform followers of a madman when he demands they make terrible choices, but as religion cannot force someone to make the wrong choice, it also cannot force someone to make the right one.

Virtually everything of value can be corrupted and turned to serve evil purposes.

There have been quite a number of madmen who in lusting for personal power have caused catastrophic death and destruction. It would be interesting to determine what percentage of them used religion as their primary means of acquiring power, but the names Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot come immediately to mind as ones for whom religion played either a minor role or no role at all in their strategies.

What is, I think, telling though is that while these bloody handed murders did not rely on religion, as we typically define it, to rise to power, they did rely on the establishment of a transcendent authority, which they eventually each assumed for themselves. What this may tell us is that mankind has a very robust capacity for serving higher calls. Unfortunately, sometime those causes are quite low, but in each case they are the product of mankind itself.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote


Is not religion of product of mankind itself. It is a tool for division and conflict among peoples. It may have a noble purpose, which is doubtful, but more often is an irritant and the cause for conflict.

The difference between it and other causes of conflict is that the others have a rational element and compromise is possible while religions irrational and compromise seldom is.