Iran wants new toys.
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_041031114949

Here is why I fear Kerry. He won't do anything about it but have talks where they will do what they want anyways like what happened to Clinton in N. Korea, and in a few years we will have a radical islamic government with nuclear weapons.

The solution to this is obvious, needed and needed fast. If Isreal doesn't do us the favor like they did in Iraq, we will have to do it ourselves.

umm

no offense, but is bush really doing anything about this or is it just being a bit ignored, ala NK...

I think Israel will do something. And unfortunately I think such action could lead to a general conflagration in the entire Middle East.

Mr Mephisto

what did isreal do in iraq?

they took out saddam's nuclear reactor build with support from the french just before it was operational. all back in 1981... Israel was ahead of the curve.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3014623.stm

What would they do? Would they would hate Isreal more, teach their children to hate Isreal more, and have youngsters kill themselves more because of Isreal?

Invasion is going to happen AGAIN to Isreal one of these days, might as well get it over with now before one of these wackjob nations gets the bomb.

North Korea is a different problem due to the fact that, they may for one already have the weapons, and two have a giant army aimed at South Korea.

I think Bush is holding off due to the election more than anything.

The Clinton Administration actually was rather successful at limiting and slowing the North Korean nuclear program. International observers had access to N. Korean nuclear reactors and monitored the activity within. Was it perfect? No.

Bush decided on his own to abandon the safeguards on N. Korean nuclear programs, directly causing the dramatic acceleration of the program's timetable. Similarly, the news that Iran was developing nuclear weapons surfaced in early 2002. What was it, exactly, that Bush has done "fast" to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program? Perhaps his Iraq invasion was intended to, I don't know, stop Iran from resuming uranium enrichment? Because we knew about the N. Korean and Iranian nuclear programs before we invaded Iraq, a country with no nuclear programs and no WMDs (in contrast to, say, North Korea and Iran.)

The problem with short-circuited thinking is, you think that:

Bush talks tough - facts = Bush IS tough.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Bush talks tough + does jack shit with regards to N. Korea and Iran = Bush is full of shit.

ah, i see. i already knew about this, i thought he meant in the current conflict. thought maybe i missed something.

Wow. I never thought someone would actually admit that the candidate they favor for president delays taking action against a developing nuclear enemy in the most unstable part of the world for 2 years in order to futher his re-election chances. And they think that is O.K.

Wow.

I hope any candidate I support for president would formulate a stance towards this country, act on it, and do what is best for the United States and the world in general without regards to his own personal political ambitions.

So in other words you are not voting for Kerry?

Who are "they" that you refer to? The Middle Eastern countries?

All I said was that such an action could lead to a general conflagration. It would be seen, rightly, as an act of war. Would that result in an actual war? Who knows? It "could" happen, as I said. And that would be unfortunate.

Why do you have to jump down every single post of mine? Especially when all I'm doing is engaging in a thread you started?


Mr Mephisto

see Ustwo...you just said it yourself that Bush is holding off bc of the election...then you turn around and say that Kerry would hesitate bc it's not within his own ambitions...

and you call kerry a waffler?????

I wish i had your sense of reality...must be great there...probably lonely, though

No I said I think he was.

I didn't say I agree with it.

I didn't say I think it is right if he is.

I am just going by a hunch.

I KNOW that Kerry would do such things.

That is the difference.

There are a lot of factors with the Iran issue we don't know, something might already be planned, perhaps we are waiting for better intel.

I am a cynic by nature, so I am being cynical about Bush, that does not mean he acts based on my cynicism.

Ustwo, we keep running into each other.

OK, so the situation is that Iran and N. Korea have substantially advanced their respective nuclear weapons programs in the time that Bush has been president, and done so publicly for Bush's last 2 years.

Bush didn't do anything about it, a position I think we are all in agreement on. You posited that you believe that Bush has refrained from taking action in order to further his personal political ambitions.

You also believe that Kerry wouldn't do anything as long as it would further his political ambitions (how not doing anything about N. Korea and Iran helps Kerry politically should he become president remains unexplained, but nonetheless I will grant you this unsubstantiated claim for the sake of argument.)

Only one of these men has had the opportunity to engage in actions towards either N. Korea or Iran while president: Bush. He has, without a doubt, done nothing. Yet you say you are MORE CONFIDENT that Kerry would do nothing if placed in the same situation, despite the fact that he has never, in fact, had the opportunity to do nothing.

You may be right that Kerry will do nothing. However, only Bush has proven that he will do nothing.

That, Ustwo, is the real difference between the two men. I will take the man more likely to fail than the one proven to have failed every time.

Surely you're not suggesting that you can foretell the future - so you it must be that you THINK Kerry woud do such things. You're just going by a hunch.

As brought up earlier, blame Clinton. North Korea signed the Non-Proliferation treaty, as such they are bound by it. Bush is right for not succumbing to their threats and black mail like Clinton did, that is negative reinforcement.

Hmmm that's funny, another foreign policy blunder from the Clinton administration coming home to roost.

i really don't see iran doing anything forceful if israel were to pre-emptively strike their nuclear program. it would be an act of war... but there isn't a single arab country that that is capable of waging war on israel. iran doesn't have the force to compete with the israelis in the air and if i'm not mistaken, iran doesn't share a border with israel... meaning they would need another country to be complicit in their attack from the ground. i just don't see this happening. i think that arab impotence in dealing with israel military really foments their hatred of the nation.

the worst iran would do is try to get international opinion to condemn israel... but that really isn't a very big stick to shake at israel anyway. it's not like they have many friends as it stands.

This is going to be the same crap that's happened with every other country that developed nukes. They'll get them, they'll blow one up while watching and saying "ooh, that's bright," scare the rest of the world, now that we have all these treaties, they'll get sanctioned for testing one, and nothing will happen because they aren't stupid enough to launch one against another country.

If Israel could've gotten the reactor before it was operational, that would've been great, but right now they're not going to be able to do anything because of the contamination that would result from an attack.

since you obviously can see the future tell me what will Bush do? invade?

Heh heh, I'm reminded of what Reagan's response was to Israel bombing the Iraqi nuclear facility.

"Well, boys will be boys."

I agree.

What would they do, threaten to Destroy Israel three times a day instead of twice a day?

Iran, Iran, Iran,
you live in a garbage can.
you can't shoot your way out
so you holler about,
Like a girl with a burning suntan.

Death! Death! Death! Death!
to America,
you scream at the top of your lungs,
but instead of behaving,
you insist on proliferating
Now join that other pariah, Il-Sung.

Who do you think you are fooling?
we can all see you mad mullahs there, drooling.
here's a thought for you fools:
concentrate on the tools,
That will improve your poor citizens' schooling.

Iran, oh sweet Persia, please keep,
your arsenal of nuke missiles asleep.
For if you should try,
to alight up the sky,
Israel shall rename you 'Bo-Peep'.

So dry up all that spit in your beards,
and dispense with the nonsensical cheers,
climb out of your dungheap,
and get on with the upkeep,
Until you can look in the mirror.

:icare:

What did N. Korea do to blackmail Clinton? How did he succumb to blackmail? Did the fact that N. Korea's nuclear program was relatively contained while Clinton upheld the Non-proliferation treaty, and amped up while Bush ignored it, mean Clinton was at fault? Is EVERY GODDAM BUSH FUCKUP Clinton's fault?

By the way, negative reinforcement is "the contingent withdrawal of a stimulus following a response, resulting in an increased likelihood of the response occurring in the future." How is "succumbing to their threats and blackmail (undefined and mysterious as those may be) negative reinforcement? Was some sort of threat on the part of the N. Korean's removed following the desired withdrawl of some Clintonian demand?

So what is Israel waiting for? They don't need U.S permission. They don't give a flying fuck what the U.S or any other country in the world says because they are above international law. They can do as they please and stupid people in the world will applaud because they have repeated over and over that they are the victim's of the world, they are going to be pushed into the sea,..yada,yada,yada.... It gets so fucking old.

Here's a thought. Let's make the mideast a nuclear free zone including Israel. Israel shouldn't mind. They've got the U.S on a string anyways that jumps when told to jump. Kinda like a dog that bites when told to bite. But naturally all in the name of peace that the Israeli's want so bad while they continue with their nuclear program. I'd say double standard but I wouldn't want to offend the poor hapless Israeli's.

Perhaps you coudl explain how one would enforce a nuclear free mid east?

Maybe using Carters magical powers of negoatiation?

If you were Isreal, on a tiny strip of land, invaded twice, surrounded by 200million people who were taught since birth to hate you, you would want nukes too.

If nothing else, the fact that Israel is much closer to Iran than the United States is provides some comfort.

You know powerclown you are well named. Sometimes I forget to laugh at them, thanks :icare:

While I don't approve of your egregious swipe at Carter, Ustwo, I believe you and I are finally in agreement. Nobody should forget that Israel is the lone democracy in the Middle East. It is the one place terrorists DON'T come from. It is under constant attack. While that doesn't excuse all of its behavior, I think that those who argue that the U.S. is just some slave to Israel's whim (I know nobody here is anti-semetic, but you know, that's also what the KKK says...) seriously misunderstands the situation there.

For people that bitch about the UN and international law a lot on this board, many of you seem very fast to try and spite the United States by implying that it is for some reason alright that countries like Iran or North Korea have weapons like this. Very disturbing, really reinforces to me that people in America actually hate this beautiful country.

Actually we have a few board members which are pretty openly anti-semetic.

And while you don't care for my swipe at Carter I'm sure you will get over it. Carter has gone from failed president, to eldar statesmen, to political hack. His weakness is a big part of why we have our current problems with Iran.

We also have a few racist middle east haters as well.