Thank G_d It Can't Be Proved!

[Annie]

I mean, if it could be, then perhaps something would have to be done. So much better this way:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_iran

Doubts remain over Iran's nuclear claims

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press WriterTue Apr 10, 4:40 PM ET

Is Iran bluffing about the progress of its nuclear program? Experts and some world powers are expressing doubt that the country has been able to assemble the complicated system it needs to enrich uranium — a potential pathway to nuclear arms. Relax, those ragheads are way too paleolithic to come up with a nuclear bomb. This message brought to you by the enlightened staff of AP.

If true, Iran's revelation Monday that it now has 3,000 centrifuges producing enriched uranium brings the country a giant step closer to being able to produce the nuclear material for a bomb. But the inaccuracy of some past claims — and Iran's present drive to defy the U.N. Security Council — has fed skepticism.

Experts say 3,000 centrifuges would be more than enough for at least one nuclear weapon a year should Iran decide to make bombs instead of its professed goal of generating power.

But Monday's announcement could be at least partly bluff — the latest hand in Iran's high-stakes game of nuclear poker with the international community that has led to U.N sanctions over its refusal to freeze enrichment.We're willing to bet Israel's existence on it. Sorry if we are wrong...

With its nuclear activities shrouded in suspicions, Iran's claims are difficult to independently verify. Exaggerating the number of centrifuges gives the Iranians more room to negotiate with world powers — and possibly allow them to hold out and keep some vestige of a nuclear enrichment program. Notice now a 'given'.

"This is a country that routinely lies about conventional weapons developments and production," said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran analyst at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the country's announcement sounded like "a boast too far." And nonproliferation expert Michael Levi at the Council for Foreign Relations cautioned, "We shouldn't rush to judgments and take Iran at its word." See, we have reasons for betting that Israel wil be here for more than a year or two...

What is known independently about the state of Iran's enrichment program fuels the doubt.

Diplomats in Vienna familiar with an International Atomic Energy Agency probe of Iran's nuclear program said Tuesday it is far less advanced than how it was presented Monday by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.

The diplomats told The Associated Press that Iran was running only about 650 centrifuges in series — the configuration that allows the machines to spin uranium gas to various levels of enrichment. And they said the machines were running empty, with none producing enriched uranium.

Russia and France — two of the six world powers pressuring Iran to give up enrichment — on Tuesday also expressed skepticism about the latest claims. Considering both are being paid to help Iran with their development, we should certainly listen to them. They must know more than IAEA, which has been basically kicked out of Iran.

Russia, which helped build Iran's only nuclear reactor, was unaware of "any recent technological breakthroughs in the Iranian nuclear program," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said. And Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia had yet to get confirmation "that they have actually begun uranium enrichment."

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei noted: "There are announcements, and then there is technological reality."

A U.S. official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said concern over the announcement was tinged with a "high degree of skepticism" in Washington that Iran "had attained all what they said they had."

The Vienna-based diplomats — all of whom also demanded anonymity — noted that this time, unlike in the past, Iranian officials presented no photos to document their claims. Nor did they offer any other physical proof of their claims.

Iran has refused to allow IAEA cameras at Natanz intended to make sure no low-enriched uranium is diverted into making weapons-grade material. But diplomats said Tuesday the government may be ready to allow inspectors to stay near the facility, allowing more frequent unannounced visits.

Two U.N. inspectors arrived in Iran Tuesday to visit the Natanz plant, Iranian media reported.

But any such deal would be less than what the agency wants. The diplomats said it was unclear whether inspectors would be allowed access to all parts of the enrichment operation — including a walled-off section. And they said that — unlike remote cameras — the IAEA experts would not be able to constantly monitor operations.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

I mean, if it could be, then perhaps something would have to be done. So much better this way:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_iran

We had no PROOF OF SADDAM'S WMD, that didn't stop us from raping that country. Why are we hesitating with Iran. Is it because they could actually FIGHT BACK??

 

[Annie]

We had no PROOF OF SADDAM'S WMD, that didn't stop us from raping that country. Why are we hesitating with Iran. Is it because they could actually FIGHT BACK??

Do you think we should? Do you think we can't take Iran?

 

[Rosotar]

Do you think we should? Do you think we can't take Iran?

Probably not with our military stretched to the breaking point.

 

[Annie]

Probably not with our military stretched to the breaking point.

and if they are not at the 'breaking point?'

 

[Bullypulpit]

Do you think we should? Do you think we can't take Iran?

With US ground forces stretched, almost to the breaking point, no, we can't. The Bush administration's game of brinksmanship with Iran is as likely to spark a war with Iran by mis-step as by design.

More than a few neo-con talking heads seemed disappointed that Britain was successful in securing the release of its sailors and marines absent the use of military force. Their lust for war is equaled only by their lack of understanding of tis nature and consequences.

 

[Bullypulpit]

and if they are not at the 'breaking point?'

<blockquote>WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon. - <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/>AP</a>, 1/245/06</blockquote>

<blockquote>"We're running out of Army units for the mission," says Robert Scales, a retired Army two-star general.

The Army is about to be "broken," he says. What would be the "canary in the mine" is if junior officers and mid-grade enlisted soldiers become so frustrated with the repeated deployments that they simply get out. Pentagon officials maintain that the retention rates of military personnel remain strong, but if they begin to weaken, it could take years to reverse the trend. - <a href=http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0404/p01s01-usmi.htm><i>The Christian Science Monitor</i></a>, 4/4/07</blockquote>

<blockquote>he Pentagon made that clear April 2 when it announced that two Army units will soon return to Iraq without even a year at home, compared with the two years units have traditionally enjoyed. One is headed back after 47 days short of a year, the other 81. "This is the first time we've had a voluntary Army on an extended deployment," says Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who advises his old service. "A lot of canaries are dropping dead in the mine."

The main consequences of a tightly stretched Army is that men and women are being sent into combat with less training, shorter breaks and disintegrating equipment. When those stories get out, they make it harder to retain soldiers and recruit them in the first place. "For us, it's just another series of never-ending deployments, and for many, including me, there is only one answer to that—show me the door out," wrote an officer in a private e-mail to Congressman Steve Rothman of New Jersey. - <a href=http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1606888,00.html><i>TIME</i></a>, 4/14/07</blockquote>

When the Pentagon says that the military is being stretched to the breaking point, don't you think it's time to listen? And it is the ill-considered, ill-conceived, invasion and occupation of Iraq, under the Bush Administration, that has brought it to this point. The responsibility cannot be laid anywhere else.

And with the "coalition of the willing" now being little more than a "coalition of the leaving", what small relief and support US troops got from these allied forces is rapidly dwindling away to nothing. Not that their presence, save for the British, was sufficient to be more than a token to begin with.

So, dear lady, there can be little doubt that our military is stretched far too thin. With National Guard units serving in Iraq, we are stripped of needed resources at home to respond to natural disaster or terrorist attack. Any attempt to engage Iran on the field of battle would likely break our military and leave US defenseless at home. How can you, in good faith, continue to support an administration that would knowingly leave this nation so vulnerable?

 

[Bullypulpit]

bump

 

[Annie]

Again, what if 'not at the breaking point'?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Again, what if 'not at the breaking point'?

Again, when the Pentagon says it's stretched to the limit, don't you think it's time to sit up and listen?

Come now, dear lady, you can surely do better than that.

 

[dilloduck]

Again, when the Pentagon says it's stretched to the limit, don't you think it's time to sit up and listen?

Come now, dear lady, you can surely do better than that.

And in the mean time we just put up with Iranians assisting the killing of out troops. Maybe Pelosis' gang can talk em into surrenderng.

 

[onedomino]

Again, when the Pentagon says it's stretched to the limit, don't you think it's time to sit up and listen?

Come now, dear lady, you can surely do better than that.

It is interesting that US military doctrine since WW2 was that we were supposed to be able to sustain two major wars (Europe and Asia), plus a skirmish, all at the same time. Now we find out that we cannot even sustain an occupation on the ground. Regarding Iran, if we do anything militarily, it will not be with the US Army. Rather, we will take out their nuclear facilities, gasoline production, and military, from the air and sea. But the Iranians calculate that we do not have the nerve to do it. They may be right, but they cannot know. That is part of what makes them madmen.

 

[akiboy]

It is interesting that US military doctrine since WW2 was that we were supposed to be able to sustain two major wars (Europe and Asia), plus a skirmish, all at the same time. Now we find out that we cannot even sustain an occupation on the ground. Regarding Iran, if we do anything militarily, it will not be with the US Army. Rather, we will take out their nuclear facilities, gasoline production, and military, from the air and sea. But the Iranians calculate that we do not have the nerve to do it. They may be right, but they cannot know. That is part of what makes them madmen.

U.S can obliterate Iranian military installations and nuclear facilities without the loss of a single American soldier.But Iran might pop a missile into Tel AViv or start of a naval war in the Straits of Hormuz. I am not saying that Iran cannot be defeated .One strike by the U.S.A.F is enough. But this unfortunately endangers International oil supplies and puts Israel at risk. The Middle East is already a simmering cauldron. I dont think anyone would want to speculate on what would happen if the cauldron blows.

 

[T-Bor]

I don't think you could take IRAN without serious consequences here. Both economically and politically. Our military would be so thin. We would be weak and ripe for the picking if other countries were to unite against us. Didnt you ever play RISK?

and if they are not at the 'breaking point?'

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Probably not with our military stretched to the breaking point.

We are NOT stretched -- except in the old-fashioned military sense. It's time our military stop fighting with its hands tied behind its back if we truly wish to win. We have the most advanced military machine in the world, yet we continue to fight a war matching their lowly conventional level. Our vast air power sits idly by while we send in foot soldiers.

We could end things next week if we only had the political will. Instead we are allowing the enemy time to develop modern weapons equal to ours which will end in a much more devastating war between two nuclear powers.

 

[Bullypulpit]

We are NOT stretched -- except in the old-fashioned military sense. It's time our military stop fighting with its hands tied behind its back if we truly wish to win. We have the most advanced military machine in the world, yet we continue to fight a war matching their lowly conventional level. Our vast air power sits idly by while we send in foot soldiers.

We could end things next week if we only had the political will. Instead we are allowing the enemy time to develop modern weapons equal to ours which will end in a much more devastating war between two nuclear powers.

If you want to bomb Iraq back into the stone age and have every hand in the world raised against this nation, that would be the way to go. Fortunately a few calmer heads prevail in Washington who understand that in the urban environment with its high concentration of non-combatants, the carpet bombing you seem to be suggesting is simply not appropriate either militarily or morally.

Your presumption of war being the ultimate solution to the problem of Iran's nuclear program begs the question of "Why?". You must've been sorely disappointed to see the British marines and sailors released unharmed from Iran.

 

[onedomino]

When negotiations fail to end Iranian uranium enrichment:

As akiboy pointed out, there could be air, sea, and perhaps special forces attacks on nuclear, military, economic (e.g., power plants and the one and only gasoline refinery), and leadership targets. Within hours of the order, Iran’s nuclear, and military facilities would virtually cease to exist. The US could, for example, put hundreds of B52, B1, B2, F117, and F15E precision bombers in the air over Iran. Further, depending on the number of carriers deployed, hundreds of F/A18, combined with surface and submarine launched cruise missiles, would destroy the Iranian Navy “in situ.” There would be no contest for the Straits of Hormuz. There would only be Iranian hulls on the bottom. F15C and F22 fighters would destroy any Iranian planes that got in the air. Third generation PAC3 Patriot missiles, SM3 Aegis missiles, and Israeli Arrow missiles would destroy most, if not all, Iranian missiles that managed to launch without first being eliminated by stealth bombers and cruise missiles. The 3rd ID could drive its armor to Tehran, but why take the casualties?

Few Iranian civilians would be immediate casualties, and the first phase of the war would soon end. Then a combined US Navy and Air Force imposed economic blockade could squeeze the Mullahs until they are overthrown, or until the Iranians complete their economic suicide, whichever comes first. Obviously, we would fund and equip Iranians working to rid themselves of the Mullahs. We could air-drop food and medicine to the places hardest hit by Mullah intransigence. Using Special Forces, Marines, and Rangers, we could seize Iranian oil production facilities, intact if possible, toasted if necessary. Proceeds from any continued oil production would be used to pay for the attack and further funds held in escrow for the Iranian people when they depose the Mullahs. Much would go wrong, as happens in every military action. Perhaps some Iranian missiles will get through (at least if we act now they will not have nuclear warheads), terrorism will spike everywhere, suicide bombers may strike inside the US, oil prices will surge near $200 per barrel in the short term, perhaps tens of thousands (or more) Iranian suicide attackers will meet their end near the oil fields. We would be condemned by the UN. We would have to listen to more French whining. The Russians and Chinese would increase their military spending. We would have to borrow hundreds of billions more money from our children and their children. Unintended consequences would occur that we cannot imagine. In the end, and it may take years of embargoes and no-fly zones, the Iranians will become exhausted and destroy the Mullahs that have made them an outlaw nation. The longer we wait to confront the Mullahs, the more difficult and expensive it will become to take them out before they acquire nuclear weapons. When negotiations fail, the only thing more horrible than war with the Mullahs will be their holding a nuclear gun to our heads. America consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil and the Mullahs are using petrodollars, driven up by swiftly increasing Chinese demand, to kill our people in Iraq and elsewhere, terrorize Israel and Lebanon, and develop nuclear weapons. There could not be a more “clear and present danger.”

So Bully, what is the alternative? If negotiations fail, let the Mullahs have nukes so they can terrorize everyone within 3000km of Tehran? Or would you suggest that we rely on mutually assured destruction, as we did with the Soviets? Would you like to bet your life and Civilization on the rationality of religious fanatics? Maybe we could get the UN to pass a resolution asking the Iranians not shoot their nukes at anyone. That would work, right?

 

[Annie]

We are NOT stretched -- except in the old-fashioned military sense. It's time our military stop fighting with its hands tied behind its back if we truly wish to win. We have the most advanced military machine in the world, yet we continue to fight a war matching their lowly conventional level. Our vast air power sits idly by while we send in foot soldiers.

We could end things next week if we only had the political will. Instead we are allowing the enemy time to develop modern weapons equal to ours which will end in a much more devastating war between two nuclear powers.

Seriously, I don't think we've played out the diplomatic front yet with Iran. I don't think we should go 'bombing' or invading there. With that said, I agree with the premise that we should stop trying to fight as if there were a 'level playing field.' It's silly. We don't use much of what's available, simply because it would be too catastrophic. Bottom line, IF we are at war, fight to win it and move onto the peacemaking. We are allowing for constant, 'manageable' war and that is wrong.

 

[onedomino]

Seriously, I don't think we've played out the diplomatic front yet with Iran. I don't think we should go 'bombing' or invading there. With that said, I agree with the premise that we should stop trying to fight as if there were a 'level playing field.' It's silly. We don't use much of what's available, simply because it would be too catastrophic. Bottom line, IF we are at war, fight to win it and move onto the peacemaking. We are allowing for constant, 'manageable' war and that is wrong.

When will the diplomatic attempts end? A year before we guess the Iranians will have nukes? A week? After the next Hezbollah atrocity? The one after that? The longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it will be to disarm the Mullahs. Does anyone think that the terrorists running Iran, with whom we have been in a one-sided war since 1979, will actually dismantle their nuke weapons program in response to negotiated extortion or weak UNSC sanctions (or even tough ones)? How difficult will it be to disarm the Iranians after the Chinese enact their recent contracts and have invested billions in their oil and natural gas fields? (Funded, incidentally, every time we go to Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or Target, to select from thousands of Chinese manufactured items.) To immediately increase the pressure on Tehran, we could educate, fund, and equip Iranian dissidents, including Kurds in NE Iran, and Arabs in SE Iran. But I doubt that will be enough to dislodge the Mullahs. We must act soon, or get ready for a world where a nation led by violent religious fanatics, funded by ever rising petrodollars, possesses nuclear weapons. If we think Iranian sponsored terrorism is bad now, wait until they have nukes backing them up. They will feel impervious to any pressure. And indeed they will be.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

we are at the breaking point because of political correctness, where the truth is suppressed in the hopes of not offending others. We are engaging a wwI style war, over in iraq, and along our troops to be used as target practice because to some americans, its better our boys die, then innocent iraqis, and the terrorists who hide out among them, mean while, the terrorists are killing the innocent iraqis, so, either we can save some of the innocent iraqis, or let um all die, by having no political will.

We are NOT stretched -- except in the old-fashioned military sense. It's time our military stop fighting with its hands tied behind its back if we truly wish to win. We have the most advanced military machine in the world, yet we continue to fight a war matching their lowly conventional level. Our vast air power sits idly by while we send in foot soldiers.

We could end things next week if we only had the political will. Instead we are allowing the enemy time to develop modern weapons equal to ours which will end in a much more devastating war between two nuclear powers.