Ustwo

Just a basic question here for the tfpers....

Do you think Iran is developing nuclear weapons? We need to determine the base of the diaglog before we have discussions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...786634,00.html (note, left wing news source)

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mojo_PeiPei

Absolutely, for too many inconsistencies and coincedences(sp) for them not to be. What's more fucked up is China and Russia seem hell bent on stopping any form of UN action to remedy the situation, not looking good.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

I see no reason to believe that they have or are seeking to obtain or create nuclear weapons. It's a fools errand, and they would be much better off developing nuclear power so that they could increase their oil exports.

The best move right now for Iran is to shut up about Israel. Yes, we all know they hate each other, but every time they open their mouth, they make themselves look like radicals, and that's not a reputation that they should seek to continue. Iran needs a better PR department.

dksuddeth

I think Iran has been working on nuke weapons, probably longer than Iraq was, and I believe that they fully intend to use them on Israel and the US as soon as they get a few.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

nezmot

I agree with willravel here - Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability achieves nothing, it would be a completely pointless exercise (not to mention, from the lips of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself, nuclear weapons are "against the will of God")

If they were just to re-phrase their objections to Israel's internal and foreign policy, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

flstf

I do not like the idea of other (unstable) countries obtaining nuclear weapons.
However I wonder why our polititians think we have the responsibility to tell another nation what defenses they can have. We seem to think we need these weapons for our defense so why shouldn't other countries? Are we so superior to them that we can have them and they can't?

If we truly believe that they are developing these weapons to use against us and war is inevitable then maybe military intervention now is necessary in order to avoid a much larger conflict later. One can only hope our current crop of polititians know what they are doing.

host

Isn't your thread just a "re-hash", of this one, over a year ago, here, titled:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=1695374&highlight=mcclellan+weapons+thought#post1695374">Are the Feb. 18 Harris Iraq Poll Results "The triumph of Opinion Over News"?</a>

How many times do we have to debunk the same, tired propaganda "Op"?
I thought that this thread exposed this BS for what it is:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2051207&postcount=36">Are we going to let cheerleader Robert Joseph, lead us into another unnecessary war?</a>

It's a non-issue. Gold is above $650 oz...for the first time in 26 years....oil is headed back to $75 per bbl, and silver is pushing to $14 oz. (up from $3.75 oz, in 2003) Those are real issues...not the neocon propaganda intended to distract from the real impact of their failed, fiscally and morally corrosive agenda....here is where "they" have us heading:
In 2001, an ounce of gold was $257, by 2006, it was <a href="http://www.kitco.com/">$656.50</a>

Once again, we will attack a country, unilaterally, and then the POTUS reluctantly admit that <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html#1">"the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there."</a>

...the last time we followed the rantings of these folks, we suffered an estimated $2 trillion obligation, when the final cost is fully measured, including lifetime care for most severely wounded troops. The loss of future accomplishments of our 2400 dead troops, cannot even be estimated.

Here's the "news":
and here is what our "Intelligence Czar", had to say, eight days ago. He should know....shouldn't he? He seems to be calm and unconcerned, and he knows a lot more than any of us do.....
Nope....Negroponte doesn't seem too worried about anything, to me....
I responded to the question that you are really asking:
Is there enough evidence of an Iran, nuclear "threat", to give our POTUS the excuse to launch pre-emptive attacks against Iran. The answer, just as it was in Iraq...is <h6>no!</h6>.

samcol

I believe they are only because once you get nukes no one will touch you. Look at NK, China, Israel, Russia and the US. Iran knows there is no stopping the PNAC plan to invade them. They look at Saddam who had no WMDs and was still invaded for oil and empire. Their only hope of survival is to become a major contendor in the arms race. Then they will be invited to the White House to chat like China's president is.

edit: Aftering reading Host's clarification of the questsion, I thought I should add that I don't support another pre-emptive quagmire.

dksuddeth

against the will of god? I've read most of the quran, didn't see the words 'nuclear weapons' anywhere. it might be just me, but as soon as allah or god is spoken of by an islamic radical, I tend towards disbelieving that individual.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Pacifier

Voted Not sure (and I am worried they would)

They claim they don't and as willravel said they have good reason to use nuclear power so thay can sell their Oil. If they would use their own oil it would be like burning money.

Also most religious leaders (including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) condem the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

The Problem is the question how honest these claims are. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dangerously mad or is he just posing as a "strong leader" to appease the people? Are the leaders of Iran carzy enough to risk the total destruction of their nation just to blow up Tel Aviv? Does MAD work in this case?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

nezmot

It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not dk - his people hold him in a very high regard - let us hope that he has the earnest integrity to stick by what he has said. And if there's one thing that Islamic Fundamentalists have in abundance, it's earnest integrity.

host

Amen...brother....e tu christian radicals!
If the new prime minister of Iraq told reporters,
"And no doubt in my mind that <b>Mohammed</b>, was sent by the Almighty. No doubt in my mind about that."

....would he give you any greater an impression that he was not a secular leader, than when you read that our president, Bush, told reporters:

"And no doubt in my mind that Lord, Christ, was sent by the Almighty. No doubt in my mind about that."

The mixture of politcial leadership and the double emphasis of "No doubt" is what IMO, defines the "radical". Scary and disturbing...and not "presidential".

stevo

Like any nation ever has. The UN is a joke and won't solve the problem.

There is not anything that could possibly happen that would convince some people that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and intends to use them on Israel and the US (or her interests). Even a nuke going off in tel-aviv wouldn't be enough. The same people that deny Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and deny Iran's desire to destroy israel would say (if there was a nuclear explosion in Israel), "The Israelies or US did it on purpose just so they could nuke iran."

There is really nothing that can be done or said to change some people's minds. President amubzeasheeba-whatever could say "we are developing nuclear weapons to destroy israel" and TFPers on this board would post things like "its all just rhetortic. he should keep his mouth shut, but no one would really do it. Its not a threat, not even an empty threat. Iran has nothing to gain by destroying israel. blah blah blah."

The thing is, this guy isn't rational. There is nothing rational about a fundamental islamic ideology and assuming these people are rational is the first (maybe second) mistake on the way to defeat.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

host

stevo, we're still reeling from an "episode" of pre-emptive war of aggression that was championed by the same shills (have you read any of my documentation of "sixteen words", Robert Joseph?), who are bleating the BS of the "imminent" Iran threat now.

Our POTUS seems indistinguishable from "radical" militant religious zealots in the middle east, with more blood on his hands, and no greater credibility.

We didn't make Bush's statements up, didn't appoint the assholes he's surrounded himself with. We didn't launch a phoney expensive, completely avoidable war. We didn't create the Intelligenc Czar position, and we didn't appoint John Negroponte to that position.

Negroponte says there is no imminent threat....not even one in this decade.
Bush has no record of credibility, or....of even conducting himself as a secular leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Israel has a record of meeting threats to it's own security head on. Post some opinions or evidence from highly regarded Israeli experts and sources about the Iran "threat".

You need to post more than rhetoric to back your statements/accusations.
Offer proof that this time.....Robert Joseph is right. Rebut Negroponte's statements with some documentation. Until you do that, compare the content of your posts with the content of mine.

What are you bringing to the TFP Politics discussion "table", besides "feelings"?

stevo

host,

if Tel Aviv is vaporized next year in a nuclear explosion, and the Bush administration said it was Iran, who would you point to, Iran or Israel/US?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Locke7

Shoot, I posted, before I realized you were talking about weapons. Although the part about it worrying me is kind of a funny concept. If they were making nuclear weapons, I would hope the whole world would be worried.

Willravel

I've read the Qu'ran several times cover to cover, and it is very specific when it says to respect other religions, espically those of the book (religions of the book = Abrahamic religions: including Judism and Christianity)...so we can't simply rely on the good book. Religion is a constantly evolving entity, and changes, such as the ruling of nuclear weapons to be wrong, are evidence of such.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a fatma (sp?) against nuclear weapons, which is law. That means that it is wrong, legally or religously, to develope nuclear weapons in Iran.

host

I have to rule out any statements from Bush. I think that I've made a thorough effort on this forum of backing up my conclusion that nothing the man says can be trusted. He told us that he barely knew Ken Lay, that he had never met Kack Abramoff, and that Saddam posed an imminent threat, not only to his neighbors, but to the U.S. as well.

The president of Iran gives me less reason to distrust his statements, than Bush does. Bush has forged his own "chain", just as Marley forged his.

Why do you succumb to the fear that Bush folks want you to embrace? Post what you "know", that the rest of us have missed, or aren't privy to. Opinions that are faith or feelings based, don't transmit too well, in this medium.
"Bush sez" just isn't enough to take any of this seriously. Neither are the remarks from Iran's leader. They are intended to make Bush seem even more foolish and impotent than he already is. Bush has made up his mind as to what his plan for Iran is. I think that the Iranians know that.

docbungle

I voted "Not sure (and I am worried they would).

But I do feel that letting things progress any further (they've already told everyone to fuck off enough times that we should start assuming they really mean it) will open a larger door than is already open for very bad things to happen.

Someone asked why we should be able to have nuclear weopons and not Iran. I feel the answer to that question is so obvious that I have to respond with a blank stare.

But what we have so far here in this thread is the same people predictably saying the same things they always do. Taking sides instead of discussing anything.

Host, how can you possibly say this is a "non-issue?" It is, in the eyes of many countries, one of the largest issues on the planet at this moment. And try discussing a political issue without dragging your hate of the president into it. It's tiring to hear it over and over again.

Stevo, your entire post is hyperbole. A rabble-rousing bowl of nothing. An all-encompassing write-off of those who don't agree with you on Iran? What is the point of such claims?

Regardless, I see Iran as a huge catalyst for whatever is going to happen in the middle-east (including the Iraq debacle), and if they develop a nuclear weapon, well, alliances and enemies will be changing around the world, and the area will be even more unstable than it is now. And that's saying a lot.

__________________
Bad Luck City

stevo

thank you. point - don't treat the president of iran like you would a rational person. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are no such thing.

Here's the first paragraph of hosts quote of negroponte that was excluded from host's post: So host, as he may "not seem too worried" he is concerned.

And no, bush didn't say iraq was an imminent threat. I believe the words were, Bush never described iraq as an imminent threat. He said we must act before the threat is imminent.

As for tehran not acquiring weapons "in this decade" Well, we are a good ways into 2006, so the next decade, for all intents and purposes, is less than 4 years away. Host, are you telling me that 3 3/4 years is not a short enough time frame to worry?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

filtherton

I remember when iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Apparently they could have struck us with a mere 45 minutes notice. Or something. I don't know. I have a hard time trusting speculation concerning axis of evil offensive capabilities. Call me crazy.

Pacifier

I think that was Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

host

stevo, I'm telling you that the folks, Joseph and Rademaker, appointed to "convey" the message of fear and concern are probably the best the administration can muster:
The "comments" of Mr. Joseph, and his underling, Mr. Rademaker, who I have posted about in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2051207&postcount=36">another thread</a>, are ABSURD.
Their "credentials" as "truth tellers" are equally suspect. If there was a credible argument as to the nuclear "threat" that Iran actually poses, these two stooges would be the last two who I would want to hear making it.

I have to assume that these two jerks and their rhetoric is the best "evidence" that this administration can come up with. It makes it seem like a redundant and pathetic joke, rather than a serious threat apparaisal from respected experts in our govenrment.

Our "officials" don't act like we are "at war", or that there are any threats of actual meirt, rising to a level that supercedes my concern that they are destroying our currency's purchasing power, in record time....so....until they do....I have to regard this as a nonsense performance that precedes another illegal war of aggression.

Ustwo

host lets forget Bush for a moment here.

What does host think, is Iran after nuclear weapons?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

You're correct, my mistake.

The supreme ruler of Iran issues a fatwa that nuclear weapons are illegal. That's that.

nezmot

This statement coming from the guy who described the President of Iran as
For fuck's sake - if you're going to try and have some credibility, do yourself a favour and try to avoid making these kind of remarks. It's quite disgraceful.

Elphaba

From Wiki:
Iran may or may not have an intention to produce a nuclear weapon, but I am not concerned if they do. Bush's intentions regarding Iran are of far greater concern to me.

Poppinjay

I was just reading about that fatwa in an interview with Marjane Satrapi, author of Persepolis. Not much is formally published in Iran, but a mujtahid is supposed to be the sole issuer of fatawas (plural of fatwa), in which case it is both a religious and legal pronouncement.

On the other hand, Bin Laden issued what he called a fatwa of war on America and he's no kind of mujtahid.

I think the question of how we should feel about it rests on if we consider Iran a rogue state, not accountable to its own hig religious leaders. I don't think it is. It's surely not a friendly state to Americans, but I don't think the government is now free-lancing out from under legal fatawas.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

splck

I don't think Iran is going for weapons, but I don't know they aren't.
The shrub and his buddies have done a good job of keeping Americans scared and paranoid. Fear is a tool.

__________________
nice line eh?

Rekna

After the way the Administration cherry picked the intelligence to suggest Iraq had WMD i'm way to skeptical to believe that Iran has them. This administration has lost all credibility by crying wolf with Iraq and now if their is real trouble with Iran no one is going to believe them at least not in the international community.

Ustwo

Now a new question:

For those who don't care if Iran has nuclear weapons, why don't you care?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

nezmot

Because only a complete fool would condemn his own country to obliteration by sanctioning the use of a nuclear weapon against another country. We've been through the whole M.A.D. escalation phase, people are aware than there is no such thing as a 'limited' nuclear strike without the other side retaliating with everything they have.

The only way to win using a nuclear weapon is to completely wipe out the other side - completely - before they can launch against you. With the invention of the nuclear submarine, it became impossible to do that.

Terrorist (secret) usage of these weapons would not be something to hide behind either, any state even looking as though it might be responsible for an aggressive nuclear act would be toast - and they know it.

Elphaba

I believe that if Bush had not squandered his opportunity to reengage with the Iranian leadership when they presented the opportunity, we would not now have an extremist in the role of President. Iran was moving toward a more open society and it is possible that the momentum is merely stalled by political bombast from both countries.

I am not of the opinion that Iran is a "rogue nation" or a member of the "axis of evil." The hyperbole from this administration is geared toward fear mongering and it has been largely successful in manipulating the public. Yes, there are bad actors that are supported by Iran, just as we have our own.

If it is Iran's intention to produce a nuclear bomb, I am not concerned because:
- Use of a bomb would result in Iran's total distruction. They are not as "mad" as some would like to believe
- Iran is surrounded by countries that do have the bomb
- The ability to make even one bomb is a symbolic deterrent to outside aggression
- I believe that the fatwa is sincere and now a part of Iranian law.

But, come now, Ustwo. It is expected that you also provide your opinion as the author of this OP. You have yet to provide a response to either of your questions.

samcol

I agree with the above except for the fatwa. Just rheatoric in my opinion but that's not too important. What is important is that they need a bomb to prevent an invasion, and like you said if they were to actually use the bomb they will be victims of the glass parking lot policy.

I suppose to answer Ustwo's question, it might actually be preferable that they get a bomb, then maybe we'd leave them alone instead of wage another half assed war. I guess I just can't see a country that "might" get a bomb as big as a threat as countries like NK and China who already have them. So either way, I really don't care as long as the US isn't involved in another war with them.

Elphaba

Amen.

I guess I believe in the fatwa, because this particular religious leader has been a no BS guy in the past. I place trust in Billy Graham being sincere in his beliefs for the same reason.

Pat Robertson? An opportunistic fraud, unworthy of any credibility.

Willravel

Good question, Ustwo. I put that I don't care for a simple reason: there are a million and one things at any given moment that can hurt of kill me. I could be hit by a car, I could have a stroke, or I could be abducted by Martians at any given moment. My first priority is simply taking reasonable precautions to protect my family and myself from forseeable dangers.

Until I see evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, I have no reason to care whatsoever. It's an obvious geopolitical move with no root in truth, not unlike the WMDs not being in Iraq. There are power plays on top of power plays, and the odds of there being even one iota of truth in any of this are mind boggling.

*If* Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then so be it. From what I understand of the Iranian government (which is exactly as radical as the Israeli government, who still has not used on nuclear weapon), they are far more likely to use the nuclear weapons capability as a deterrant, and maybe a tool to finally restore balance between Israel and the other Middle Eastern countries. In a perfect world, no one would have nuclear weapons, but this is hardly a perfect world.

Can you imagine if the USSR was prevented from developing nuclear weapons? The US would have taken over the world.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence. Without evicdence, how can one confidently convict and sentence?

Ustwo

You and I have very different standards of evidence, so I won't argue what the evidence is, its kinda pointless between us, so I won't bother with that side of your post, but the first bit struck me oddly.

This is the same argument I hear from people who smoke despite the risks. I would think proliferation of nuclear weapons among radical world elements would be at least a concern greater than smoking risks.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mojo_PeiPei

It's funny people bring Bush into it, somehow this problem, a 25 year old problem, is his fault. And for that matter, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Iran is seeking to get nuclear weapons, it just happens you choose not to except it. I like that people buy into the Ayatollahs Fatwa, a man who supports terrorism, with known operational ties to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, yeah his fatwas are legit. Then people are saying that the Diplomatic game is Bush's fault, that's cute. Under their last president Khatami, a reformist, we were making a lot of head way, they claim to halted their programs for a substantial period of time under him to work on (I don't buy it), the second Ahmadinejad took office he resumed his programs.

They have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim only recently to have successfully done (for the first time as of April 2006) it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased from Pakistan, or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, Iran, and North Korea... Wow, that sure is a jolly old bunch, I wonder what they might be after?

It's funny how people so easily buy into the inconsistencies, rhetoric, and lies, all because of their distaste for one man, who is in no way responsible for this problem. Sort of cute how in November of 2003 Baradei of the IAEA released a report spanning 30 pages which had found Iran has successfully completed the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle being Uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichement, fuel fabrication, heavy water production, a light water reactor, a heavy water research reactor, as well as various other developmental facilities... all in secret. They happen to forget to disclose the imports of uranium metal, yellow cake, uranium hexaflouride, and depleted uranium, that is conveneient. Or tell how it works out that Iran only recently said they had enriched Uranium as I pointed out above, at very modest levels, yet they were discovered by Division B of the IAEA to have already enriched uranium to extremely high levels in 2003, and the tests suggested that the samples had even been "cleaned" up. It's a fact since the George H. W. Bush administration their have been reports given to congress, stating that Iran had a "continuing interest" in nuclear weaopns and related technology, and that they were in the early stages of a weapons program. In 1982 it was disclosed that Iran had imported 531 meteric tons of yellowcake, that's more then Brazils nuclear reactors produce in a year; ofcourse they didn't disclose that they had been importing materials or enriching until 2003, again the program was at that point 22 years old. Here are a few examples I pulled from a book I got "Countdown to Crisis" by Kenneth Timmerman, a nobel peace prize nominee.

It's all good if you don't care about this whole situation, but it's absurd to sit there and make baseless claims that are contrary to reality.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

nezmot

What exactly are you trying to say Mojo? What claims are you calling baseless and contrary to reality?

Mojo_PeiPei

Any claims that because something comes from Bush's mouth it is invalidated on the subject, or somehow the Ayatollah speaks the gospel.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.