Rice is indeed demanding that the U.N. threaten force thus giving Iran "no choice" but to discontinue its nuclear energy program:
Rice says U.N. must adopt tough Iran resolution
Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday the United Nations must consider strong action against Iran, such as a resolution that could lead to sanctions or lay the groundwork for force.
Asked what options the U.N. Security Council should consider, Rice said it should look at chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to force Iran to comply with international obligations over its nuclear plans.
"I am certain we will look at measures that can be taken to ensure that Iran knows that they really have no choice but to comply," Rice told reporters.
Chapter 7 makes a resolution mandatory under international law for all U.N. members. It can lead to sanctions and eventually the use of force if it specifically calls for them or threatens "all necessary measures."
This is obviously about you trying to prove me wrong, Debra_Law, but if that's all you have it appears it is you who is wrong ... .which I've come to expect from you lately.
I asked for you to provide a quote where Rice "demanded that the UN threaten Iran with the use of force." All you did was replicate your earlier post, which quoted from that Washington Post article. As I mentioned in response to that prior post, all that article states is that Rice, "said on Thursday the United Nations must consider strong action against Iran, such as a resolution that could lead to sanctions or lay the groundwork for force." Thus, the "strong action" being suggested by Rice at this point in time, is a Chap. 7 resolution that could lead to sanctions or lay the groundwork for force. Requesting a resolution from the UN that demands Iran do certain things or the UN might take necessary measures is a far different thing that requesting a resolution to threaten Iran with the use of force.
I would like for Rice to take a tough stance, for her to demand the UN threaten Iran with military force, and for the UN to follow through, but all it appears she's done is request a Ch. 7 Resolution. I asked for you to find a quote where Rice demands the UN threaten Iran with force, and you have failed to do so.
Ticomaya wrote:revel wrote:From all accounts, tico, Iran is a long way off from producing nuclear weapons even if it does really have intentions of producing them, which it claims it does not. Why are you and other like you always in such a hurry to kill and destroy people that you can't give peaceful and political means a chance? Even a lot of your republicans are saying a military solution to Iran would be a mistake as previous links have already been left in this thread have indicated.
I take issue with your "
hurry to kill and destroy people" remark. I believe Iran is a threat with nuclear weapons, unlike you and others like you, and I believe they should be prevented -- by use of force if necessary -- from obtaining them, unlike you and others like you. It was reported yesterday that Iran will ignore the UN's request to to suspend its uranium enrichment program, and instead they indicate they are going to increase their enrichment program. Thus, they are ignoring the "international community, the opinion of which you and others like you, hold so dear. Remember, at some point N. Korea was a "long way off" as well.
And show me where I have said I don't want to give peaceful, political, or diplomatic means a chance.
You used an eye rolling emoticon in response to any UN solutions which is why I assumed you are in a hurry to use force against Iran. As of yet, they do not have the capabilities of making a nuclear weapon and won't be for another ten years at least so there is not a huge hurry, we can afford to wait a little bit before hurrying off and making another mistake like Iraq maybe this time, with nuclear radiation involved to make it all so much more worse. Edgar left the above article in which tells of all the repercussions of an attack on Iran, you all didn't listen before when you were warned about Iraq, I hope we don't go through the same thing again only possibly even more deadly.
Tico incredulously denies that U.S. officials have demanded that the U.N. threaten Iran with the use of military force.
Debra_Law wrote:Tico incredulously denies that U.S. officials have demanded that the U.N. threaten Iran with the use of military force.
And you, again, have failed to show us otherwise.
Bear in mind, I
want the US to demand that the UN threaten Iran with the use of military force.
But let me ask you this: Did the UN threaten Iraq with the use of military force in Resolution 1441, a Ch. 7 resolution, and if so, where?
revel wrote:Ticomaya wrote:revel wrote:From all accounts, tico, Iran is a long way off from producing nuclear weapons even if it does really have intentions of producing them, which it claims it does not. Why are you and other like you always in such a hurry to kill and destroy people that you can't give peaceful and political means a chance? Even a lot of your republicans are saying a military solution to Iran would be a mistake as previous links have already been left in this thread have indicated.
I take issue with your "
hurry to kill and destroy people" remark. I believe Iran is a threat with nuclear weapons, unlike you and others like you, and I believe they should be prevented -- by use of force if necessary -- from obtaining them, unlike you and others like you. It was reported yesterday that Iran will ignore the UN's request to to suspend its uranium enrichment program, and instead they indicate they are going to increase their enrichment program. Thus, they are ignoring the "international community, the opinion of which you and others like you, hold so dear. Remember, at some point N. Korea was a "long way off" as well.
And show me where I have said I don't want to give peaceful, political, or diplomatic means a chance.
You used an eye rolling emoticon in response to any UN solutions which is why I assumed you are in a hurry to use force against Iran.
The UN is an ineffectual organization, and I have no confidence it will have any positive effect on convincing Iraq to halt its nuclear program. As I said, it will probably adopt another resolution threatening the
consideration of military force.
Quote:As of yet, they do not have the capabilities of making a nuclear weapon and won't be for another ten years at least so there is not a huge hurry, we can afford to wait a little bit before hurrying off and making another mistake like Iraq maybe this time, with nuclear radiation involved to make it all so much more worse.
I do not believe it will take 10 years, and I believe Iran has every intention of increasing its uranium enrichment program to make the day it has enough for a bomb come as quickly as possible.
Quote:Edgar left the above article in which tells of all the repercussions of an attack on Iran, you all didn't listen before when you were warned about Iraq, I hope we don't go through the same thing again only possibly even more deadly.
Unlike you, I don't believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. It was the appropriate action to take under the circumstances.
The article quoted by Edgar wrote:A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.
So true.
Our harmless Iranian President: Israel will be annihilated.
Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was ``heading toward annihilation,'' just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a ``permanent threat'' to the Middle East that will ``soon'' be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.
``Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,'' Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. ``The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.''
Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be ``wiped off the map.''
On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: ``If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?''
The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, ``will be freed soon.''
He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: ``Believe that Palestine will be freed soon.''
It would seem that the administration is playing the same game that they did before the misbegotten idiot ordered the preemptive attack on Iraq.
It is apparent that they operate in a vacuum and see only what they want to. And never consider the consequence of their actions.
To this point my belief was that only a madman would bomb Iran and that the use of atomic weapons was absolutely unthinkable. I could nor conceive that the president of the US was such a madman. It would appear that I may be wrong.
Ticomaya wrote:revel wrote:Ticomaya wrote:revel wrote:From all accounts, tico, Iran is a long way off from producing nuclear weapons even if it does really have intentions of producing them, which it claims it does not. Why are you and other like you always in such a hurry to kill and destroy people that you can't give peaceful and political means a chance? Even a lot of your republicans are saying a military solution to Iran would be a mistake as previous links have already been left in this thread have indicated.
I take issue with your "
hurry to kill and destroy people" remark. I believe Iran is a threat with nuclear weapons, unlike you and others like you, and I believe they should be prevented -- by use of force if necessary -- from obtaining them, unlike you and others like you. It was reported yesterday that Iran will ignore the UN's request to to suspend its uranium enrichment program, and instead they indicate they are going to increase their enrichment program. Thus, they are ignoring the "international community, the opinion of which you and others like you, hold so dear. Remember, at some point N. Korea was a "long way off" as well.
And show me where I have said I don't want to give peaceful, political, or diplomatic means a chance.
You used an eye rolling emoticon in response to any UN solutions which is why I assumed you are in a hurry to use force against Iran.
The UN is an ineffectual organization, and I have no confidence it will have any positive effect on convincing Iraq to halt its nuclear program. As I said, it will probably adopt another resolution threatening the
consideration of military force.
Quote:As of yet, they do not have the capabilities of making a nuclear weapon and won't be for another ten years at least so there is not a huge hurry, we can afford to wait a little bit before hurrying off and making another mistake like Iraq maybe this time, with nuclear radiation involved to make it all so much more worse.
I do not believe it will take 10 years, and I believe Iran has every intention of increasing its uranium enrichment program to make the day it has enough for a bomb come as quickly as possible.
Quote:Edgar left the above article in which tells of all the repercussions of an attack on Iran, you all didn't listen before when you were warned about Iraq, I hope we don't go through the same thing again only possibly even more deadly.
Unlike you, I don't believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. It was the appropriate action to take under the circumstances.
The article quoted by Edgar wrote:A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.
So true.
On Iraq, I disagree and will leave it at that to avoid another Iraq thread. However, experts have said that it will take Iran at least ten years to be able to develop nuclear weapons if that is in fact their desire at this point in time. They have also said that their purpose in having uranium is for energy purposes, and I don't think that it is against international laws or anything for them is it since it is only at something like 3%? I admit I am completely ignorant in this area though.
In any event, the rest of the world is not as eager to rush to war or even to sanctions as we are.
Nuclear 'Breakthrough' May Help Iran to Compromise
revel wrote:On Iraq, I disagree and will leave it at that to avoid another Iraq thread. However, experts have said that it will take Iran at least ten years to be able to develop nuclear weapons if that is in fact their desire at this point in time.
Worst case scenario: Iran has a nuclear bomb in 4 years (2009).
Quote: They have also said that their purpose in having uranium is for energy purposes, and I don't think that it is against international laws or anything for them is it since it is only at something like 3%? I admit I am completely ignorant in this area though.
You join Debra_Law in naively proclaiming Iran's peaceful intentions.
Quote:In any event, the rest of the world is not as eager to rush to war or even to sanctions as we are.
Shocker.
Ticomaya wrote:Worst case scenario: Iran has a nuclear bomb in 4 years (2009)
Best case scenario ... they detonate in Kansas!
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Worst case scenario: Iran has a nuclear bomb in 4 years (2009)
Best case scenario ... they detonate in Kansas!
Anon
You once again show your true colors,be rooting for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
I am not surprised by that,because you have a history of that.
Now,why does anyone believe that the US is the only country that can hit Iran?
Israel has the capability,and the means.
They also have a reason,since Iran has several times now stated its intention to destroy Israel.
Since they have been threatened,Israel would be perfectly wthin its rights to attack.
I favor the US doing nothing,and let the much vaunted UN handle the problem.
Since the UN,according to some on here,is the final authority on anything,let them solve the problem.
As long as Iranian nukes arent used on us or our allies,let Iran nuke Europe if it wants.
It wont be our problem.
There are at least four best case/worst case scenarios, one for each to the two choices that the National Command Authority has to choose between.
I believe that the decision will be to let the Iran weapons program work itself out diplomatically.
THE BEST CASE: Iran agrees to halt its nuclear weapons program, and cooperates with a UN team of specialists who keep the issue under the magnifying glass. Iran in return would receive Western assistance in building a nuclear power plant that could not be used for producing weapons-grade fissionable material. The United States might promise to extend its nuclear umbrella to Iran. Any first-strike nuclear attack on Iran, would obligate the United States to retaliate against those responsible for the nuclear attack. In this scenario, the Iranian government fulfills its treaty obligations to foreswear nuclear arms in the future, and as a result tensions would be lowered in the region and the world at large. The success of such an important treaty might encourage Iran to moderate its words and policies.
THE WORST CASE: After making the agreement so well-intentioned above, Iran is faithless and secretly continues its nuclear weapons programs. If their efforts are not hampered by inspections and the work doesn't hit any major setbacks, Iran would have at least one Hiroshima scale bomb by 2008.
Confident that they've "put one over on the infidel", Iran continues to actively support terrorist gangs and maintains hateful, threatening rhetoric against Israel and the United States. The US objects, but the vocal Left in this country accuses the Administration (Rep, or Dem) of being overly aggressive, etc. Nothing is done, immediately after all who would want to admit that the Best Cases scenario is beginning to look like it ain't a'gonna happen.
Then one fine day, the Iranians successfully test fire a nuclear weapon, and declare themselves full members in the nuclear club, and demand that the U.S. totally remove all military from Southwest Asia. Then they tell Saudi Arabia and the oil producers that Allah's Wrath might descend upon any of the faithful who sell oil to the West, without it being taxed by Iran.
Israel goes on full military alert within 24 hours of the Iranian nuclear test. A day, a week, maybe a month or two and then a nuclear warhead explodes above Telaviv. The shock of a nuclear explosion over Israel stuns the world. Before that shock has worn off, a shipping container aboard a tramp steamer flying a San Rafael merchant flag, explodes destroying much of Seattle. Immediate deaths of the Telaviv and Seattle attacks exceeds 2 million, with ten times that number injured. Long term mortality rates for those exposed to what would be dirty bombs would mirror those reported after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Israel might not survive long after such an attack, and the U.S. economy and system might be shocked into a standstill for months, or even years.
Iranian guilt is quickly established, and the President (could be either Party) will be faced with the decision of what response will be made. Since this is the worst case scenario and it is very likely, nuclear retaliation will be the choice. For the sake of clarity, lets say that the casualties in Iran only equalled those of Telaviv and Seattle. That's over four million people dead in a week, with as many as forty-million who will live shorter and less healthy lives. Attack and retaliation might not be the end of the scenario. The increase in violence in Southwest Asia might continue to soar. Israel isn't going to die a peaceful death.
When it appears that diplomacy has failed, the National Command Authority, orders U.S. military intervention into Iran to destroy or delay their nuclear weapons program.
THE BEST CASE: Technical sophistication, planning and competence all work together flawlessly to successfully destroy essential parts of the Iranian nuclear program that would make nuclear weapons impossible for at least five years. Several squadrons of the USAF do what they do so well, and without doubt seriously cripple the Iranian program. The attack(s) kill a remarkably small number of people on the ground, and no USAF losses occur.
The Left and the Islamic community scream bloody-murder, but nothing comes of it. The Iranian government falls from internal pressure, and a new more moderate leadership comes on the scene.
THE WORST CASE: Everything goes wrong. There is considerable collateral damage, and USAF losses are significant. Damage to Iran's nuclear weapons program is light, and easily repaired. In the wake of the American strike, the pace to develop nuclear weapons is increased and a nuclear test occurs well-ahead of schedule. In the interim, Iran becomes the martyred hero of the radical Islamic movement. The new Iraqi government is unable to sustain itself and collapses. The Saudi Royal Family is overthrown and replaced with an Islamic government along the lines of that in Iran. Attacks on Israel greatly intensify. Terrorist operations on American Soil by "conventional means" increase in tempo and size.
The Left and the Islamic communities are joined in their condemnation by middle Americans. Political and military careers are destroyed. The political fallout continues for a decade, during which the United States is increasing constrained from foreign affairs or the use of military force ... but Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal, and the risk of nuclear attack on the U.S. and Israel might be averted.
All of these scenarios are extremes, and the actual outcomes we might expect are somewhere in between the Best and Worst Cases. The success of diplomacy is truely the most desirable resolution of the problem. Unfortunately, the probabilities are that diplomacy will fail and Iran will develop, test and deploy nuclear weapons. Even if they do that, it is not certain that they would make a first-strike on Israel, or be complicit in a nuclear attack on a major U.S. seaport. Weighing the risks is not easy, nor certain. There is no "Right, or correct" answer that can be known without the passage of a lot of time after the decision is made. Ultimately, this is a Presidential decision that eventually will have to be made. We should all join together in the earenest hope that whatever the President's decision, the outcome will be closer to the Best Case Scenario than the Worst.
Quote:THE WORST CASE: After making the agreement so well-intentioned above, Iran is faithless and secretly continues its nuclear weapons programs. If their efforts are not hampered by inspections and the work doesn't hit any major setbacks, Iran would have at least one Hiroshima scale bomb by 2008.
That is complete unadulterated bullshit typical of Mr. Out-of-toucherman.
Quote:WASHINGTON -- The government has far greater confidence in the assessments of Iran's weapons capabilities than it did in those on Iraq because analysis has improved as a result of "lessons learned" from the Iraq intelligence failures, senior U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday.
The officials said they know that they must rebuild public confidence in the accuracy of their conclusions in the wake of the 9/11 and Iraq intelligence debacles.
They commented during a two-hour roundtable discussion with reporters marking the first anniversary of the nation's new intelligence organization.
"Our overall intelligence on Iran has benefited from a lessons-learned exercise," said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, top deputy to John D. Negroponte, the national intelligence director.
Divergent views
Hayden, a former National Security Agency director, said analysts are incorporating more divergent views into their reports and are using more precise language to describe what they know and what they do not know.
The officials stood by their evaluation that it will be several years before Iran can produce a nuclear weapon, despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration yesterday that recent developments in his country's nuclear program require the United States to treat Iran as a nuclear state.
In recent days, members of Congress have begun to scrutinize the intelligence on Iran in light of the Iraq failures and have criticized the new data.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, said last week after reading the classified reports on Iran that the government's assessment "is not close to where it needs to be."
Roxanne, thanks for the article, it it is nice to get a rush of reasonableness once in a while.
In my worst case scenario for military intervention ... I speculated that the worst case might:
Fail to inflict sufficient damage to seriously delay Irans weapons program and that many lives be lost in the effort. IF so then in a WORST CASE the nuclear facilities might be quickly repaired and that a crash program to produce nuclear weapons MIGHT result. IF a crash effort was undertaken and IF there were no setbacks, then Iran MIGHT produce a Hirshima-like weapon in 2008, thats only one year less than predicted in the article that Rox posted ... and that to is only an estimate of what we might expect if Iran's program continues unmolested. In my scenario I've tried to be very conservative in estimates, and to weigh the negatives probably a little heavier than might be justified. However, when trying to estimate outcomes where many lives are at risk, extreme caution should be taken.
Rox, and others think I'm out of touch. Hmmnn. Perhaps, I don't receive periodic updates directly from the intelligency community, and I don't have a large staff of specialists doing directed research for me. I don't read all that is published, much less that published by the Left and anti- press. My memory isn't what it was five years ago, and I find that I can no longer do square-roots in my head. On the other hand, I feel fine and still read at nearly the pace I did 20 years ago. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that my opinions today may be "better" than they were when I was younger and more emotionally involved in public life. I think it is a good thing that people doubt.
Asherman
Quote:I don't read all that is published...
Oh, that might be the problem then...it has already been widely published in all major newspapers, that there were NO w.m.d in Iraq, i betcha thats the bit that you haven't read.
Good Morning Ash,
The element I think that you leave out of what attacking them does is in terms of incensing and having them hate us even more than they do. I think that the reason they hate us like they do today is because of our constant meddling and interfering in their affairs. Supporting and backing repressive regimes doesn't do much to endear us to them. Attacking them may knock out their short term ability to make a bomb, but in turn give them tremendous resolve in obtaining one. I've told you before that I think this is not only highly possible, but probable that they would do so. I also think it could be easily delivered, and I think they might be able to do it without leaving a smoking gun. With our intelligence capabilities, I don't have much faith that that can find out about much of anything. If we are to believe the stories of how 9/11 happened without us having a clue, and if course, no warning or idea of the possibility of it happening, I seriously doubt we could figure out much else. The money we have spent has been on invading Iraq, not inproving our security here at home and our intelligence services. I stand convinced they are as ignorant, stupid, and clueless as the day before 9/11. If I am to believe your rendition of 9/11, they are of no use whatsoever.
I also don't believe that Russia and China are going to tolerate attacks on Iran because of the financial and supply issues, but I have to do that later. I am running late to get to a client site, so I have to continue late today.
Anon
