"I told you so" just doesn't quite do it...

Discussion in 'Iran' started by rhodescholar, Sep 28, 2009.

  1. rhodescholar
    Online

    rhodescholar Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,432
    Thanks Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
    Ratings:
    +1,788
    While not a member here back then, about 6 years ago I laughed at the Western powers' belief that Iran could be "negotiated away" from a nuclear weapons program. I said that it is not possible for a criminal dictatorship to negotiate in good faith on anything, as the Nazis proved 60 years back.

    The Iranian fascists had everything to gain from obtaining nuclear weapons, and nothing to lose from US/Western sanctions, so even then I knew that a war to annihilate their diseased, wretched, terrorist-sponsoring government from this earth was a necessity.

    Like Will Smith in I, Robot, saying "I told you so" right now, well, just doesn't quite say it.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574420641457091318.html

    There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran
    An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon.

    By ELIOT A. COHEN

    Unless you are a connoisseur of small pictures of bearded, brooding fanatical clerics there is not much reason to collect Iranian currency. But I kept one bill on my desk at the State Department because of its watermark—an atom superimposed on the part of that country that harbors the Natanz nuclear site. Only the terminally innocent should have been surprised to learn that there is at least one other covert site, whose only purpose could be the production of highly enriched uranium for atom bombs.

    Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.

    Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush.

    Edited For Our Copyright Policy - KK
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2009
  2. publicprotector
    Offline

    publicprotector Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    320
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    Perhaps you can tell us all what nukes Iran has and who they are going to use them on, what , no proof.

    Perhaps you can explain America's and others who have and do back terrorist organisations for their own ends.

    And what have you told us, absolutely nothing. Whilst one nation spreads hate and racism you scream at others allegedly doing the same.

    But whats the point in me even answering, your just a mind controlled bot aren't you, not capable of rational or reasoned thought logic or common sense.
     
  3. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    A. Khan recently confirmed that Pakistan had its first nuclear warhead six years after starting HEU production. The public first became aware of Natanz in 2002 and it has now spawned a second enrichment facility.
     
  4. publicprotector
    Offline

    publicprotector Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    320
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    So what, what does it matter if Iran has nukes, as you have stated many others have and many others will obtain them. The only reason why there is even an Iran issue is because of Israel. Yet even the Israeli Government does not make any sense on this given that they have 100-200 nukes Iran could not pose any real threat to them.

    If Irans leaders were as mad as some people claim they have nothing to gain by attacking Isral with nukes. The whole country would be nuked by Israel so what would be the point. Is it not more of the case that an nuke armed Iran may threaten Israels future expansion plans.

    Its a bit like asking us to believe that Mexico wanted a nuke and the US Governement told everyone that they would be a threat to the US. Who would believe that, no one.
     
  5. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    It matters because Iran is obligated to a treaty they signed. Obligation.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

some how i told you so just doesnt do it