Next Stop Iran

[onedomino]

The chances that Iran will stop uranium enrichment, and the drive to obtain nuclear weapons, are next to zero. They believe that nuclear weapons will guarantee the survival of the totalitarian and terrorist Mullah regime.

Tehran Deplores G8 Statement Against Iran's Nuclear Program
Jun 10, 2007, 8:11 GMT
Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Complete article: http://news.originalsignal.com/arti...lear-programmes-monsters-and-critics-com.html

Tehran - Tehran on Sunday deplored the final statement by the leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) against Iran's nuclear programmes.

'It is deplorable that the G8 paid no attention to the legal aspects of Iran's nuclear programmes such as International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports and our constant cooperation with the IAEA,' Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said.

'The G8 statement therefore lacks any legal or internationally acknowledged basis,' the spokesman added in his weekly press briefing.

The G8 had warned Iran that harsher sanctions would be adopted if the Islamic state did not halt uranium enrichment in line with United Nations Security Council resolutions.

'There will be no enrichment suspension in whatever form,' the spokesman reiterated Iran's position.

The Economist Magazine thinks that an armed strike against Iran may not be necessay. I have my doubts, but we will see.

Complete article: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8668903
Every effort should be made to stop an Iranian bomb. But there is a better way than an armed strike. In 2002 Mr Bush consigned Iran along with Iraq and North Korea to an “axis of evil”. Since 2004, for lack of good alternatives, he has been helping the efforts of Britain, France and Germany to talk rather than bludgeon Iran into nuclear compliance. Iran claims that its nuclear programme is for civil purposes only. Last year, the Europeans called its bluff by offering trade, civil-nuclear assistance and a promise of talks with America if it stopped enriching the uranium that could produce the fuel for a bomb. When Iran refused, diplomacy led in December to the imposition of economic sanctions by the Security Council.

This is a promising approach. The diplomacy at the United Nations proceeds at a glacial pace. But Iran is thought to be several years from a bomb. And meanwhile the Americans, Europeans, Russians and Chinese have at last all lined up on the same side of the argument. What is required now is a further tightening of the economic squeeze coupled with some sort of an incentive—most usefully an unambiguous promise from Mr Bush that if Iran returns to compliance with the nuclear rules it will face no attempt by America to overthrow the regime. Even then, America and Iran may be fated to lock horns in the Middle East. But the region, and the world, will be a good deal safer without the shadow of an Iranian bomb.

 

[Annie]

I don't think that necessarily the US will have to do it, we all know UN isn't going to. If it appears that they are close to development of a deliverable weapon, I think Israel will hit them and perhaps because of the difficulty in doing so, might well be nuclear.

If somehow the US does, more likely to be conventional.

 

[onedomino]

Strikes against Iran may come sooner than we think, and for a different reason:

Lieberman: Bomb Iran If It Doesn't Stop
Conn. Senator Says The U.S. Should Strike If Tehran Keeps Helping Anti-U.S. Forces In Iraq

Complete article: http://news.originalsignal.com/article/353924/lieberman-bomb-iran-if-it-doesnt-stop.html

(CBS) The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

The Indepedent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.

 

[Annie]

Strikes against Iran may come sooner than we think, and for a different reason:

I'd like to think he has that kind of influence, but don't think so. Interestingly enough, I heard him speaking tonight that he's not getting involved with any presidential campaigns, until the nominees are decided. He says that currently he has to side more with nearly all the Republicans on the #1 issue facing the American people, the WOT.

 

[onedomino]

I don't think that necessarily the US will have to do it, we all know UN isn't going to. If it appears that they are close to development of a deliverable weapon, I think Israel will hit them and perhaps because of the difficulty in doing so, might well be nuclear.

If somehow the US does, more likely to be conventional.

I think they must be stopped long before a nuclear weapon is "deliverable." They must be stopped before they possess such a weapon, deliverable or not. The Iranians seem to doubt America's resolve on this issue. They have hit us many times since 1979 and we have done nothing in retaliation, thereby increasing doubt of US resolve. But there must be one or two rational heads in Tehran. Well, maybe not. But if there were, what do they see as the benefit of provoking a US attack? Are they playing this game only to stop short of nuke weapon possession in an effort to extort maximum economic advantage? Maybe they have miscalculated and believe that in the end the US will do nothing. They may be right, if someone like Obama gets elected.

 

[Annie]

I think they must be stopped long before a nuclear weapon is "deliverable." They must be stopped before they possess such a weapon, deliverable or not. The Iranians seem to doubt America's resolve on this issue. They have hit us many times since 1979 and we have done nothing in retaliation, thereby increasing doubt of US resolve. But there must be one or two rational heads in Tehran. Well, maybe not. But if there were, what do they see as the benefit of provoking a US attack? Are they playing this game only to stop short of nuke weapon possession in an effort to extort maximum economic advantage? Maybe they have miscalculated and believe that in the end the US will do nothing. They may be right, if someone like Obama gets elected.

I do not think the US will move preemptively against Iran, we are too overextended now, for good or non reasons. I do see the likelihood though of Israel, I could be wrong.

 

[onedomino]

I do not think the US will move preemptively against Iran, we are too overextended now, for good or non reasons. I do see the likelihood though of Israel, I could be wrong.

Not necessarily right now. I agree that Joe will not get his way immediately, although I wish he would. The shipment of EFP to Iraq is an act of war. When I say stop Iran, I am referring to the Air Force and Navy. And they are not too extended to take action. I am not an avocate of a ground invasion of Iran, although an attack designed to take out Iran's uranium enrichment facilities (located deep underground) may necessarily involve Special Forces, if only to verify success.

 

[Annie]

Not necessarily right now. I agree that Joe will not get his way immediately, although I wish he would. The shipment of EFP to Iraq is an act of war. When I say stop Iran, I am referring to the Air Force and Navy. And they are not too extended to take action. I am not an avocate of a ground invasion of Iran, although an attack designed to take out Iran's uranium enrichment facilities (located deep underground) may necessarily involve Special Forces, if only to verify success.

I've never been all that up on military strategies, but I do remember reading that air and spec. forces, alone with conventional weapons, are incapable of stopping an armed state. Lord knows, we have plenty here who know more on this than I.

If memory serves, that is basically what was tried in Vietnam, under JFK. It's also what we wanted to confine ourselves to, more or less, in Gulf War I.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Sorry, I'm not scared.

I heard Bush and his followers make the same claims about Iraq: that they were close to having nukes, and they had huge stockpiles of WMD.

I didn't fall for it the first time. I sure am not falling for it again.


Does Iran need to submit to international inspections, for their civilian nuclear program? Yes. Is it possible they have a research program, on how to weaponize uranium? Probably. They've had a nuclear research program going back to the Shah 30 years ago. We didn't complain about it when the shah was doing it. Is enriching civilian-grade uranium into weapons grade uranium an exceedingly difficult technical challenge (yes) - one the iranians haven't yet overcome? Probably.

Are they close to weaponizing enriched uranium, and putting it on missles? Show me the evidence.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry, I'm not scared.

I heard Bush and his followers make the same claims about Iraq: that they were close to having nukes, and they had huge stockpiles of WMD.

I didn't fall for it the first time. I sure am not falling for it again.


Does Iran need to submit to international inspections, for their civilian nuclear program? Yes. Is it possible they have a research program, on how to weaponize uranium? Probably. They've had a nuclear research program going back to the Shah 30 years ago. We didn't complain about it when the shah was doing it. Is enriching civilian-grade uranium into weapons grade uranium an exceedingly difficult technical challenge (yes) - one the iranians haven't yet overcome? Probably.

Are they close to weaponizing enriched uranium, and putting it on missles? Show me the evidence.

You just admitted yu do NOT beieve the evidence. So basicly unless we can take you by the hand and have you touch a nuclear warhead you will not believe it, and even then I bet yo would claim it was just a trick.

People like you are why we are in danger.

As to striking Iran , it is a bad idea unless we are prepared for a ground war. Is anyone actually niave enough to believe if we bomb Iran they won't move against our troops in Iraq?

 

[Bullypulpit]

I don't think that necessarily the US will have to do it, we all know UN isn't going to. If it appears that they are close to development of a deliverable weapon, I think Israel will hit them and perhaps because of the difficulty in doing so, might well be nuclear.

If somehow the US does, more likely to be conventional.

Why didn't Israel hit North Korea for us? The logic of arguments is as flawed as it gets. With years to go before Iran develops a deliverable nuclear weapon, there is plenty of time to reverse the course towards conflict the Bush administration has set us on. Unless, of course, he decides to pull the trigger before giving diplomacy a chance to run its course...You know, like he did in Iraq.

 

[Annie]

Why didn't Israel hit North Korea for us? The logic of arguments is as flawed as it gets. With years to go before Iran develops a deliverable nuclear weapon, there is plenty of time to reverse the course towards conflict the Bush administration has set us on. Unless, of course, he decides to pull the trigger before giving diplomacy a chance to run its course...You know, like he did in Iraq.

North Korea has many more problems with US/Japan than with Israel. As for 'years':

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ars&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009

April 02, 2007 6:15 PM

Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

Natanz_centrifuges_nr Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.

...

 

[Annie]

and for those that doubt that Iran is in the nexis of problems in the WOT:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2099634,00.html

MI6 probes UK link to nuclear trade with Iran


Mark Townsend, crime correspondent
Sunday June 10, 2007
The Observer

A British company has been closed down after being caught in an apparent attempt to sell black-market weapons-grade uranium to Iran and Sudan, The Observer can reveal.

Anti-terrorist officers and MI6 are now investigating a wider British-based plot allegedly to supply Iran with material for use in a nuclear weapons programme. One person has already been charged with attempting to proliferate 'weapons of mass destruction'.

During the 20-month investigation, which also involved MI5 and Customs and Excise, a group of Britons was tracked as they obtained weapons-grade uranium from the black market in Russia. Investigators believe it was intended for export to Sudan and on to Iran....

 

[onedomino]

Why didn't Israel hit North Korea for us? The logic of arguments is as flawed as it gets. With years to go before Iran develops a deliverable nuclear weapon, there is plenty of time to reverse the course towards conflict the Bush administration has set us on. Unless, of course, he decides to pull the trigger before giving diplomacy a chance to run its course...You know, like he did in Iraq.

How close should we let the Iranians get to the possession of nuclear weapons? A year? A week? What incentive do the Mullahs have to abandon nuke weapons development? Compared to what they believe will guarantee their terror regime's survival, economic sanctions, and even naval blockades, are nothing. Some argue that we should "contain" the Mullahs, as we did with the Soviets. But that assumes that the Mullahs are rational. In the end, no American President, whether from the left or right, will be able to take the risk of allowing nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of religious fanatics. If the Mullahs do not relent, then strikes against their nuclear facilities will be a question of when, not if.

 

[red states rule]

How close should we let the Iranians get to the possession of nuclear weapons? A year? A week? What incentive do the Mullahs have to abandon nuke weapons development? Compared to what they believe will guarantee their terror regime's survival, economic sanctions, and even naval blockades, are nothing. Some argue that we should "contain" the Mullahs, as we did with the Soviets. But that assumes that the Mullahs are rational. In the end, no American President, whether from the left or right, will be able to take the risk of allowing nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of religious fanatics. If the Mullahs do not relent, then strikes against their nuclear facilities will be a question of when, not if.

Perhaps it will take Israel being vaporized by a mushroom cloud, the rest of the world will understand the threat Iran poses

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why didn't Israel hit North Korea for us? The logic of arguments is as flawed as it gets. With years to go before Iran develops a deliverable nuclear weapon, there is plenty of time to reverse the course towards conflict the Bush administration has set us on. Unless, of course, he decides to pull the trigger before giving diplomacy a chance to run its course...You know, like he did in Iraq.

You need to talk to your leftoid buddies, they are clamoring that "talking" and sanctions are not enough.

 

[red states rule]

You need to talk to your leftoid buddies, they are clamoring that "talking" and sanctions are not enough.

I would like to know how to talk to someone who denies the Holocaust happened, and who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map

 

[DeadCanDance]

You just admitted yu do NOT beieve the evidence. So basicly unless we can take you by the hand and have you touch a nuclear warhead you will not believe it, and even then I bet yo would claim it was just a trick.

People like you are why we are in danger.

As to striking Iran , it is a bad idea unless we are prepared for a ground war. Is anyone actually niave enough to believe if we bomb Iran they won't move against our troops in Iraq?

You just admitted yu do NOT beieve the evidence. So basicly unless we can take you by the hand and have you touch a nuclear warhead you will not believe it

I'm not saying that Iran isn't a problem. We do need to make them submit to an inspection regime.


But, I'm assuming that four years ago, you parroted the alarmist warnings on Iraq - they were close to having a nuke, and they had massive stockpiles of WMD.

You were wrong then. I was right. I said back then, the evidence was dubious, at best.

What assurances can you give me that you're right, this time?

 

[red states rule]

You just admitted yu do NOT beieve the evidence. So basicly unless we can take you by the hand and have you touch a nuclear warhead you will not believe it

I'm not saying that Iran isn't a problem. We do need to make them submit to an inspection regime.


But, I'm assuming that four years ago, you parroted the alarmist warnings on Iraq - they were close to having a nuke, and they had massive stockpiles of WMD.

You were wrong then. I was right. I said back then, the evidence was dubious, at best.

What assurances can you give me that you're right, this time?

So you would take the world of Adolph Ahmadinejad who wants to wipe Israel of the map, kill Jews and Amercians - because you hate Pres Bush more then him?

 

[Psychoblues]

I said the same things back then, DCD.

You just admitted yu do NOT beieve the evidence. So basicly unless we can take you by the hand and have you touch a nuclear warhead you will not believe it

I'm not saying that Iran isn't a problem. We do need to make them submit to an inspection regime.


But, I'm assuming that four years ago, you parroted the alarmist warnings on Iraq - they were close to having a nuke, and they had massive stockpiles of WMD.

You were wrong then. I was right. I said back then, the evidence was dubious, at best.

What assurances can you give me that you're right, this time?

These armchair warriors would be glad for any WAR that causes them to wet their jeans in THEIR glee of any perceived victory by them regardless the consequence. The good Lord knows their jeans have already been washed time and again for the last 4 or 5 years of constant zero value warfare. FoxNews feeds them and the administration provides the poison.

Ask about any old veteran of any foriegn war. WWI vets are now extinct, WWII, Korean Conflict and the Viet Nam vets are getting scarce, but ask any of them. Not many, but most will tell you that the WAR ON IRAQ is just plain STUPID. They will also tell you that a more intelligent president or at least one that had some genuine military experience would have never gone into Iraq promising flowers, praise and expecting any childishish dream fulfilment of having been a "WarTime President" or the legacy that follows it.

He couldn't cut it in '68. His party won't be cutting it in '08. My, how time flies.

Bush and flies I do despise. The more I see bush, the more I like flies.