Iran: A real threat... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-25-2003, 09:36 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html

Quote:

VIENNA, Sept 25 (Reuters) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog has found traces of arms-grade enriched uranium at a second site in Iran, a month before a U.N. deadline for Tehran to prove it has no secret atomic weapons programme, diplomats said on Thursday.

One diplomat told Reuters the discovery could support Tehran's explanation that the discovery of highly-enriched uranium at a previous site in Iran was due to contamination from imported components.

But several other diplomats said it could support the U.S. theory that Iran has been secretly purifying uranium for use in a nuclear explosive device -- a charge Tehran denies.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the diplomats said the new traces of enriched uranium were found in environmental samples taken during inspections at the Kalaye Electric Co. on the southern outskirts of Tehran.

Earlier this year, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found traces of enriched uranium at a plant at Natanz, some 250 km (150 miles) south of the Iranian capital.

The IAEA finding at Natanz was a surprise, since Iran had insisted that its enrichment centrifuges were never tested live -- that is, with nuclear material. Also, Iran has always said it only wants to produce low-enriched uranium, unusable in bombs.

Tehran, which says its nuclear programme is peaceful, blames the earlier find at Natanz on machinery which it says was contaminated with enriched uranium when it was purchased abroad on the black market in the 1980s. This explanation has met with scepticism inside and outside the IAEA.

However, one Western diplomat said failure to get a positive result from samples taken at Kalaye would have been surprising, as this is where Iran said it stored the centrifuge components which it says were contaminated.

"Not getting a positive result would have been odd,'' the diplomat said. "This was the facility where components used in the centrifuges were said to be stored and manufactured.''

Another Western diplomat disagreed, saying that this finding would not vindicate Iran, but could support the theory that Iran has been enriching uranium secretly at Natanz and Kalaye.

"This finding may actually raise even more questions about the discovery of enriched uranium,'' the diplomat told Reuters.

Secret tests
Other diplomats said that the result could show that Iran has been covertly testing its enrichment machinery at Kalaye.

The United States and a number of other countries have long suspected that Iran secretly tested its centrifuges at Kalaye, which diplomats say would be a serious beach of Iran's obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and would oblige the IAEA board to notify the U.N. Security Council.

The Security Council has the power to impose diplomatic and economic sanctions.

Iran has always insisted that it did not conduct live tests of its centrifuges either at Kalaye or Natanz. But in an August 26 report, the IAEA said that a team of U.N. centrifuge experts had said Iran must have tested its centrifuges with uranium.

An IAEA spokeswoman neither confirmed nor denied the diplomats' statements, saying only that the IAEA was focusing on Iran's October deadline and the departure of inspectors to Tehran on Sunday for a month of intensive inspections and talks.

"We can't divulge the results of any analysis of samples at this stage,'' IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

Iranian officials were not available for comment.

Iran has until October 31 to enable the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to prove it has no secret nuclear weapons programme, as the United States alleges, or it will be reported to the Security Council.

From a State Dept transcript http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm

Quote:

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism.

Quote:

Iran
Despite the victory for moderates in Iran's Majles elections in February, aggressive countermeasures by hardline conservatives have blocked most reform efforts. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and continued to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. Statements by Iran's leaders demonstrated Iran's unrelenting hostility to Israel. Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that must be removed; President Khatami, labeling Israel an "illegal entity," called for sanctions against Israel during the intifadah; and Expediency Council Secretary Rezai said, "Iran will continue its campaign against Zionism until Israel is completely eradicated." Iran has long provided Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups--notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC--with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. This activity continued at its already high levels following the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May and during the intifadah in the fall. Iran continued to encourage Hizballah and the Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities against Israel. Iran also provided a lower level of support--including funding, training, and logistics assistance--to extremist groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia.

Although the Iranian Government has taken no direct action to date to implement Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the decree has not been revoked, and the $2.8 million bounty for his assassination has not been withdrawn. Moreover, hardline Iranians continued to stress that the decree is irrevocable. On the anniversary of the fatwa in February, the IRGC released a statement that the decree remains in force, and Ayatollah Yazdi, a member of the Council of Guardians, reiterated that "the decree is irrevocable and, God willing, will be carried out."

Iran also was a victim of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)-sponsored terrorism. The Islamic Republic presented a letter to the UN Secretary General in October citing seven acts of sabotage by the MEK against Iran between January and August 2000. The United States has designated the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

WHat would people think if we were to take some form of action against an actual threat like Iran? Does anyone see this happening? Iran been nothing but trouble since the revolution back in the early 80's (granted the Shah was a rat-bastard himself). When I think of an Islamic threat Iran comes to mind, hard lining theocrats who blur religion and politics. Also now you hear about The Iranian gov't stirring up problems in Iraq due to Shiite majority... things could get interesting.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-25-2003, 09:46 AM

Found some more stuff I thought was worth posting...

http://www.terrorismanswers.org/sponsors/iran.html

Quote:

What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?
The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:

In November 1979, Iranian student revolutionaries widely thought to be linked to the Khomeini government occupied the American Embassy in Tehran. Iran held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a U.N. observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.
Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.
U.S. officials say Iran supported and inspired the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

Quote:

Does Iran have weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. According to the CIA, Iran possesses chemicals that can induce bleeding, blistering, and choking, as well as the bombs and artillery shells to deliver these agents. Iran also has an active biological weapons program, driven in part by its acquisition of "dual-use" technologies—supplies and machinery that can be put to either harmless or deadly uses. Finally, with help from Russia, Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy.

Does Iran have missiles that can deliver weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. Iran has hundreds of Scuds and other short-range ballistic missiles. It has also manufactured and flight-tested the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,300 kilometers—enough to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Iran is developing missiles with even greater range, including one that it says will be used to launch satellites but that experts say could also be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Which countries have supplied Iran with missile technology?
Russia, China, and North Korea.

MuadDib · 09-25-2003, 09:52 AM

I would say, for the love of God take it up with the UN and let the international community deal with it!

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-25-2003, 09:59 AM

For the sake of arguement, what if the U.N. proves to be as effective as it was in the Iraq situation?

Lebell · 09-25-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MuadDib
I would say, for the love of God take it up with the UN and let the international community deal with it!

So in otherwords, do nothing?

MuadDib · 09-25-2003, 10:18 AM

Yeah, I know waiting for real and valid evidence before rushing of to war can be a real downer, but it is part of actual due process and justice. Look, the issue with Iraq was that there was no proof of a weapons program to justify the invasion. And guess what there was no weapons program and they were no threat to us. There is no evidence to suggest that the UN was ineffectual in its duties to uncover weapons, in fact the contrary is true and our invasion and attempts to find these weapons has only shown that they were right on. While an objective third party is determining if there is a threat we should do nothing and abide by their decision.

Lebell · 09-25-2003, 10:33 AM

Actually, everyone knows that Iraq had a weapons program; the point in question was whether or not they destroyed their WMD's.

And while you assert that the UN was effective since we've found no WMD's to date, I would assert that those weapons are safely in Syria, since Hussein liked to move sensitive war material to neighboring countries when he thought he would loose them (witness the planes he moved to Iran and Syria during GW1).

Anyway, Iran won't make the same mistake that Iraq did and prematurely strike. No, they'll wait until they have a bomb or two and then threaten to use them if anyone challenges them.

That strategy has proven a winner for NK and will prove a winner for Iran.

If Isreal is smart, they'll take out those Iranian nuke facilities while they can, like they did in Iraq.

If they don't, I see a glassy plain where Tel Aviv is within 20 years.

MuadDib · 09-25-2003, 10:56 AM

No, everyone doesn't know they had a weapons program. They did in the past but it was no longer active. There is no evidence besides our paranoid fear to tell us that they did.

And I'm sorry but the fact is we couldn't find anything and neither could they. At the very least they are just as good at what they do as we are.

And what is this about Iraq prematurely striking? We prematurely struck them out of fear of their alleged weapons program. North Korea does not have a capable long range nuclear weapons program nor does Iran. However, nuclear proliferation is inevitable so long as we have nuclear weapons and threaten to take out any country that attempts to gain a comparable military advantage. Until we get rid of ours all other nations will be raising to get them. Simply owning nukes doesn't make a nation an enemy nor do having a mostly arab populace. Our policies make enemies not weapons.

rodgerd · 09-25-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
For the sake of arguement, what if the U.N. proves to be as effective as it was in the Iraq situation?

What, you mean like forcing disarmament of all illegal weapons? Sounds fine.

Sorry, the UN doesn't install US puppet governments and force the locals to hand over industry to the companies of administration officials on no-bid contracts, though. You'll have to invade if you want that to happen.

rodgerd · 09-25-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
And while you assert that the UN was effective since we've found no WMD's to date, I would assert that those weapons are safely in Syria, since Hussein liked to move sensitive war material to neighboring countries when he thought he would loose them (witness the planes he moved to Iran and Syria during GW1).

You can assert anything you like. You can assert magic fairies are hiding Hussein and his weapons. Without evidence, this doesn't make it so.

And Hussein never got anything he sent overseas during GW I back. Why would he repeate the mistake?

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell That strategy has proven a winner for NK and will prove a winner for Iran.

This, I agree with. Sadly the present administration has a policy which has, in effect, told others that no matter how perverse a rogue nation you are (North Korea, Pakistan) you will be treated with kid gloves if you have nukes. If you don't, you'll be invaded on a poll-driven whim.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell If Isreal is smart, they'll take out those Iranian nuke facilities while they can, like they did in Iraq.

It would certainly make a change from their nuclear proliferation efforts in the 80s. Giving nukes to the racist regime in South Africa; way to "never forget",.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell If they don't, I see a glassy plain where Tel Aviv is within 20 years.

Israel already has nukes. It's highly unlikely Iran or any other nation state in the area that values its existence would use them on Israel.

A further complication for any Moslem would-be destroyer of Israel is that nuking Israel would almost certainly destroy the site of Mohammad's ascent to heaven, which would not make you especially popular with many of your co-religionists, especially those in parts of the world who care somewhat less about the existence or otherwise of Israel.

The biggest risk for nuclear use is probably US ally Pakistan supplying the terrorist groups it supports and hosts (like al-Qaida) with weapons, since such groups aren't interested in their survival, only the death of their enemies, and will compromise their religious beliefs to attain the goal.

rodgerd · 09-25-2003, 11:42 AM

What do you expect? Unarmed Iraq gets invaded. Armed North Korea gets treated with kid gloves. Islamic terrorist backer Pakistan gets enthusiastic support.

There's a message there if you're a nation the US might decide to attack in time for the '04 elections: get nukes, fast.

Lebell · 09-25-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MuadDib
No, everyone doesn't know they had a weapons program. They did in the past but it was no longer active. There is no evidence besides our paranoid fear to tell us that they did.

Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds: Medical Group proves use of chemical weapons through forensic analysis

...........

24 June 1998

UNSCOM CHIEF SAYS IRAQ PUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN WARHEADS
(Richard Butler reports on results of lab tests) (880)

...

United Nations -- The head of the UN Special Commission overseeing the
destruction of Iraqi weapons (UNSCOM) told the Security Council June
24 that UNSCOM has "utterly, unambiguous" test results showing that
Iraq put VX nerve gas in missile warheads.

link

Of course, after we won GW1, we instituted the no fly zones to help protect these people and here was Saddam's response:

Iraq gets aggressive, doubles defenses

WASHINGTON - American warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone over northern Iraq attacked surface-to-air missile installations Wednesday after being targeted by Iraqi radar, U.S. officials said. Initial reports said at least one Iraqi missile was fired but missed the U.S. planes.

The incident underscored an increasingly aggressive Iraqi challenge to the no-fly zones enforced by American and British planes in northern and southern Iraq. President Saddam Hussein has nearly doubled the number of surface-to-air missile batteries in the restricted flight zones and has been using them with increasing frequency to threaten allied pilots, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

link

Not to mention he kicked out the weapon's inspectors:

American inspectors arrive in Jordan: U.N. Security Council condemns expulsion

So is it paranoid to be afraid of this maniac?

I don't think so.

Quote:

And I'm sorry but the fact is we couldn't find anything and neither could they. At the very least they are just as good at what they do as we are.

See above references. They found plenty, destroyed plenty and had A LOT of questions where the stuff was that they knew was there in 1998 when they got kicked out.

Quote:

And what is this about Iraq prematurely striking?

Well, maybe you were too young to be aware of it, but back in 1990, Saddam Hussein decided to invade a little country south of him called Kuwait.

During the ensuing conflict, Hussein tried to turn it into a general Middle Eastern war by launching Scud missles into Isreal. This had the potential for turning the war into a nuclear conflict.

Before that, back in 1980 he attacked his neighbor Iran.

So Saddam has a history of launching unprovoked attacks on neighboring countries as well as his own people.

Quote:

We prematurely struck them out of fear of their alleged weapons program.

No, we struck because, based on his track record, it was reasonable to assume that he had WMD's and was in violation of the UN resolution ending the Gulf War.

It was also reasonable to remove a man who has shown he was unstable and willing to attack his neighbors as well as someone who brutalized his own people.

Quote:

North Korea does not have a capable long range nuclear weapons program nor does Iran.

Do you read the news?

Tenet: North Korea has ballistic missile capable of hitting U.S.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- North Korea has an untested ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States, top U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday.

Quote:

However, nuclear proliferation is inevitable so long as we have nuclear weapons and threaten to take out any country that attempts to gain a comparable military advantage. Until we get rid of ours all other nations will be raising to get them. Simply owning nukes doesn't make a nation an enemy nor do having a mostly arab populace. Our policies make enemies not weapons.

Are you seriously foolish enough to believe that if we were to unilaterally disarm that the world would happily follow?

That somehow the genie of nuclear weapons can be put back into the bottle?

I agree with you that simply owning nukes is not enough to make a nation our enemy; but attacking our allies and threatening our economic interests in order to gain territory and regional power ARE enough to make you our enemy, not to mention supporting terrorists such as Hussein has done in Isreal.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-25-2003, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodgerd
What, you mean like forcing disarmament of all illegal weapons? Sounds fine.

Sorry, the UN doesn't install US puppet governments and force the locals to hand over industry to the companies of administration officials on no-bid contracts, though. You'll have to invade if you want that to happen.

17 resolutions disobeyed over the course of 10 years??? You guys hate the current administration so much that you willingly neglect the truth. Hell Bill Clinton went through the exact same dance. You guys forget so soon?

U.N. : "Saddam, we want you to disarm"
Saddam: "Whatever are you talking about???"
U.N. "We're sending in inspectors."
Saddam: "By all means!"
U.N.: "No weapons were found"
Clinton: "I'm not buying it, lets put the heat on" (throw in a defection or two, most noticeably Hussien Kamel to Jordan)
U.N.: "Wowsers we just found 18,000 liters of Anthrax!!!"

We know he had the programs running, we know he had the facilities running, no smoking gun doesn't mean that they didn't exist... get serious.

Although Rodgerd you bring up an excellent point about Pakistan, the U.S. doesn't realize the effect's of sleeping around with dirty countries. Pakistan (at least at some levels) is trying to cooperate, but they are alot like Afganistan 1) They have very little control over tribal areas 2) and the current regime/country is FILLED with the "Allah Ah Akbar kill America, Jihad is good!" types. Has it stands though we aren't supporting them too much which is pissing off Musharaff(sp?)... He politically stuck his neck out for us against a the widely popular Taliban and Al Qeade and we really haven't done dick for them yet (Things could change, I seem to remember reading in Time that him and Bush are to mee to discuss).

Quote:

However, nuclear proliferation is inevitable so long as we have nuclear weapons and threaten to take out any country that attempts to gain a comparable military advantage. Until we get rid of ours all other nations will be raising to get them. Simply owning nukes doesn't make a nation an enemy nor do having a mostly arab populace. Our policies make enemies not weapons.

Thing about N. Korea is those fucks are publically saying insane shit like "we will burn the U.S. in a Holocaust of Nuclear Fire" or there public admittance that they would gladly sell nukes to people or places that hate us Americans.

I would also disagree that having an Arab and/or Muslim populace doesn't breed enemies. When you have the Wahabi's in Saudi Arabia, Shiite Radicals in Iran, Fundamentalists in Sudan and Nigeria, and crazy Asian's starting the whole Muslim theocratic thing now, something tells me it isn't by chance that the Muslim world is becoming such a world disease.

Food Eater Lad · 09-25-2003, 12:57 PM

This is why you should vote for Bush in 04, cause you know the dems will ignore Iran like they ignore all major threats.

Lebell · 09-25-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodgerd
You can assert anything you like. You can assert magic fairies are hiding Hussein and his weapons. Without evidence, this doesn't make it so.

And Hussein never got anything he sent overseas during GW I back. Why would he repeate the mistake?

He didn't get anything back from Iran you mean.

And the difference between Syria and fairies is that Syria was his ally and there was precident.

To the best of my knowledge, the King of the Fairies hasn't signed any treaties with Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

This, I agree with. Sadly the present administration has a policy which has, in effect, told others that no matter how perverse a rogue nation you are (North Korea, Pakistan) you will be treated with kid gloves if you have nukes. If you don't, you'll be invaded on a poll-driven whim.

Odd that when the public supports a war, the critics call it 'poll driven' but when they don't support it, they critics chastize the administration.

No matter, I somewhat agree with you, but all the more reason to take out Iran NOW.

Quote:

It would certainly make a change from their nuclear proliferation efforts in the 80s. Giving nukes to the racist regime in South Africa; way to "never forget",.

What are you talking about?

South Africa gave up on it's nukes program and does not have any.

Quote:

Israel already has nukes. It's highly unlikely Iran or any other nation state in the area that values its existence would use them on Israel.

A further complication for any Moslem would-be destroyer of Israel is that nuking Israel would almost certainly destroy the site of Mohammad's ascent to heaven, which would not make you especially popular with many of your co-religionists, especially those in parts of the world who care somewhat less about the existence or otherwise of Israel.

Of course Iran would not directly nuke Tel Aviv; more likely they would provide a weapon to a terrorist group and attempt to smuggle it into Isreal.

As to the rock where Muhammed supposedly assended into Heaven, that is in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv.

Quote:

The biggest risk for nuclear use is probably US ally Pakistan supplying the terrorist groups it supports and hosts (like al-Qaida) with weapons, since such groups aren't interested in their survival, only the death of their enemies, and will compromise their religious beliefs to attain the goal.

I will agree that I am afraid of the Pakistan govt. falling into radical Muslim hands, like Iran.

If that happens, the world will become even more dangerous.

prb · 09-25-2003, 01:22 PM

If Iran is the real threat that Iraq was made out to be, Bush has unfortunately squandered his "Pre-emption Doctrine" in his war against Iraq to uncover the WMD that apparently weren't there.

Bush right now couldn't get support from the American people to take on Iran - - even if it really ought to be done. Not even if he found a bag with $87 billion in it.

Bush has weakened this country's ability to defend itself by committing so many troops and dollars already to Afghanistan and Iraq. We have little resources to wage another war should one be necessary.

Only wars that absolutely have to be fought should be fought - - and after all efforts in diplomacy have been exerted.

Food Eater Lad · 09-25-2003, 05:37 PM

Like taking out Iran would be harder than talking out Afghanistan or Iraq?

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-25-2003, 06:18 PM

It actually could be for two reasons

1) They aren't the dust bunnies like Afganistan
2) They have had 15 years to rebuild their military and no sanctions holding them back (outside of proliferation).

Food Eater Lad · 09-25-2003, 07:50 PM

True, but I am sure we can handle it. Not saying it would be a cake walk though.

Zeld2.0 · 09-25-2003, 09:34 PM

Nah Iran shouldn't be too hard. The problem is that they are pretty much:

a) well known to have WMDS / pursuing the big ones (hell they probably have nukes anyways) and as well know, once you play the nuke card, its not so easy anymore
b) Iran is like what Russia once was to the Balkans - Russia saw its duty (before WW1) to promote a united Balkans udnre Russian leadership - Iran (at least the fundies there) feel that Iran should unite the Arabs/Middle East. Of course then again thats the goal of practically every leader anyways but Iran has a lot more power in this case than Iraq - people from all over would fight for Iran (at least those who believe in their ideas.)
c) Iran is a pretty big key nation in the Middle East - Iraq for a long time had sanctions and was pretty much isolated by the nations around it - Iran on the other hand, isn't quite so - its also right between Pakistan and Iraq, right south of Russia, and holds a large chunk of real estate. Taking out Iran would hurt the area and would create a vacuum of power in a critical area. If anyone is reading history, thats not a very good thing to do.

Moskie · 09-25-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Only wars that absolutely have to be fought should be fought - - and after all efforts in diplomacy have been exerted.

Exactly...It scares me that such a statement has to be made, and is not just assumed and practiced by any and every civilized human being.

I know some supporters of the war in Iraq are going to say that every diplomatic angle had been tried, only to fail, leaving the U.S. with the one option of forcefully taking Iraq. But the U.N. was still doing *something*, ineffectual or not, when the war was starting, meaning that not every single option was pursued. Bush started this war, no one else, and that alone means to me that he commited a gross injustice.

Charlatan · 09-26-2003, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Anyway, Iran won't make the same mistake that Iraq did and prematurely strike. No, they'll wait until they have a bomb or two and then threaten to use them if anyone challenges them.

That strategy has proven a winner for NK and will prove a winner for Iran.

If Isreal is smart, they'll take out those Iranian nuke facilities while they can, like they did in Iraq.

If they don't, I see a glassy plain where Tel Aviv is within 20 years.

Can you blame them? Iran had a front row view on Iraq and has clearly been paying attention to North Korea... what did they see? (not what did the US see what did they see?)

Saddam disarming. Saddam slowly doing what was asked of him (i.e. destroying Al Samoud missles and weapons inspectors). Then he's invaded.

North Korea gives evidence that they have nukes and isn't afraid to use them... The US backs off and opens dipomatic talks...

See the difference? I'm sure Iran and other nations see the difference...

Can you spell Nuclear Proliferation?

Arc101 · 09-26-2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Sorry, the UN doesn't install US puppet governments and force the locals to hand over industry to the companies of administration officials on no-bid contracts, though. You'll have to invade if you want that to happen.

Yep - have to agree with that, and also with anyone who says the best way not to get invaded is get real WMD fast. Bush is far from making this world safer, his actions have forced other countries to develop and acquire nukes and other weapons.

09-25-2003, 09:52 AM	#3 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	I would say, for the love of God take it up with the UN and let the international community deal with it! __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

09-25-2003, 09:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	For the sake of arguement, what if the U.N. proves to be as effective as it was in the Iraq situation? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-25-2003, 10:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	Yeah, I know waiting for real and valid evidence before rushing of to war can be a real downer, but it is part of actual due process and justice. Look, the issue with Iraq was that there was no proof of a weapons program to justify the invasion. And guess what there was no weapons program and they were no threat to us. There is no evidence to suggest that the UN was ineffectual in its duties to uncover weapons, in fact the contrary is true and our invasion and attempts to find these weapons has only shown that they were right on. While an objective third party is determining if there is a threat we should do nothing and abide by their decision. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

09-25-2003, 10:33 AM	#7 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Actually, everyone knows that Iraq had a weapons program; the point in question was whether or not they destroyed their WMD's. And while you assert that the UN was effective since we've found no WMD's to date, I would assert that those weapons are safely in Syria, since Hussein liked to move sensitive war material to neighboring countries when he thought he would loose them (witness the planes he moved to Iran and Syria during GW1). Anyway, Iran won't make the same mistake that Iraq did and prematurely strike. No, they'll wait until they have a bomb or two and then threaten to use them if anyone challenges them. That strategy has proven a winner for NK and will prove a winner for Iran. If Isreal is smart, they'll take out those Iranian nuke facilities while they can, like they did in Iraq. If they don't, I see a glassy plain where Tel Aviv is within 20 years. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

09-25-2003, 10:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	No, everyone doesn't know they had a weapons program. They did in the past but it was no longer active. There is no evidence besides our paranoid fear to tell us that they did. And I'm sorry but the fact is we couldn't find anything and neither could they. At the very least they are just as good at what they do as we are. And what is this about Iraq prematurely striking? We prematurely struck them out of fear of their alleged weapons program. North Korea does not have a capable long range nuclear weapons program nor does Iran. However, nuclear proliferation is inevitable so long as we have nuclear weapons and threaten to take out any country that attempts to gain a comparable military advantage. Until we get rid of ours all other nations will be raising to get them. Simply owning nukes doesn't make a nation an enemy nor do having a mostly arab populace. Our policies make enemies not weapons. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

09-25-2003, 11:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
rodgerd Psycho Location: Wellington, New Zealand	What do you expect? Unarmed Iraq gets invaded. Armed North Korea gets treated with kid gloves. Islamic terrorist backer Pakistan gets enthusiastic support. There's a message there if you're a nation the US might decide to attack in time for the '04 elections: get nukes, fast.

09-25-2003, 12:57 PM	#14 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	This is why you should vote for Bush in 04, cause you know the dems will ignore Iran like they ignore all major threats.

09-25-2003, 01:22 PM	#16 (permalink)
prb Psycho	If Iran is the real threat that Iraq was made out to be, Bush has unfortunately squandered his "Pre-emption Doctrine" in his war against Iraq to uncover the WMD that apparently weren't there. Bush right now couldn't get support from the American people to take on Iran - - even if it really ought to be done. Not even if he found a bag with $87 billion in it. Bush has weakened this country's ability to defend itself by committing so many troops and dollars already to Afghanistan and Iraq. We have little resources to wage another war should one be necessary. Only wars that absolutely have to be fought should be fought - - and after all efforts in diplomacy have been exerted.

09-25-2003, 05:37 PM	#17 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Like taking out Iran would be harder than talking out Afghanistan or Iraq?

09-25-2003, 06:18 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It actually could be for two reasons 1) They aren't the dust bunnies like Afganistan 2) They have had 15 years to rebuild their military and no sanctions holding them back (outside of proliferation). __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-25-2003, 07:50 PM	#19 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	True, but I am sure we can handle it. Not saying it would be a cake walk though.

09-25-2003, 09:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Nah Iran shouldn't be too hard. The problem is that they are pretty much: a) well known to have WMDS / pursuing the big ones (hell they probably have nukes anyways) and as well know, once you play the nuke card, its not so easy anymore b) Iran is like what Russia once was to the Balkans - Russia saw its duty (before WW1) to promote a united Balkans udnre Russian leadership - Iran (at least the fundies there) feel that Iran should unite the Arabs/Middle East. Of course then again thats the goal of practically every leader anyways but Iran has a lot more power in this case than Iraq - people from all over would fight for Iran (at least those who believe in their ideas.) c) Iran is a pretty big key nation in the Middle East - Iraq for a long time had sanctions and was pretty much isolated by the nations around it - Iran on the other hand, isn't quite so - its also right between Pakistan and Iraq, right south of Russia, and holds a large chunk of real estate. Taking out Iran would hurt the area and would create a vacuum of power in a critical area. If anyone is reading history, thats not a very good thing to do.