IAP Political Forum

 Why all the saber rattleing at Iran? This report states that 1/2 the suicide bombers are Saudis.
   http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20070719.aspx

.





freethinker,

Probably because those from Saudi were their own radicals and they do have problems with them.

Otherwise there is a strong relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Plus we sell them BILLIONS of dollars of armaments, planes, etc.


Iran is a different matter altogether. Iran seeks a Nuke Warhead and both Israel and the U.S. will not allow that to occur.


Warm reguards
Terry


.

 Oh I see... The majority of the 911 hijackers were Saudis, 5000 of them were killed fighting us in Iraq, Saudi money funds Al Qaida, Osama is Saudi,half the suicide bombers in the Iraqi occupation were Saudis. But Ahmadinejad has doubts about the Holocaust , has a nuclear program however small and he becomes the instant Hitler that must be attacked and invaded?? You don't suppose that OIL DEALS or lack of them has anything to do with this "guess who our enemy is this year" game?? Didn't we arm Saddam before he became our enemy du jour?

.




freethinker mate,
Go back and read my answer VERY carefully. All your concerns are noted EXCEPT for hypothetical conjectures. I am rather tired of the 'all because of oil' hype used by the far left. Aren't you? And no I am not a warmonger and I do want all our troops out wherever there is no need/request for them. OPEC is not the only organization or group of countries that sell OIL. Indeed, the U.S. does as well.


.

Perhaps because the Saudis havent said that jews should be expelled at the sea?

.





Jabato,

That makes as much sense in that region of the World as any, for as you know, the Mid-East is indeed very complex.


Warm regards, and welcome to the Boards at IAP!  :D
Terry


.

Good point and one that baffles many intelectuals and politicians! So far I have not heard any conclusive evidence that would convice me otherwise. Just a bunch of nutters on both sides. And then there's the iranian president to deal with and allegations that he is pursuing nuclear arms to wipe Israel off the map for what has been lost in translation. And that my friend opens up a whole can of worms  ;)

Terry mate,
He had the point, you just never want to accept that, as all other Israel lovers. You know what made me laugh, though? Not that you are pro-Israel, as I see majority of my old foes here still trying to make their point on a lost cause.
What made me laugh is "Go back and read my answer VERY carefully."
I already told you nobody gives a rat ass to go back and read your lips, or read between your lines. Believe me, you are not so important personality, so your speeches will be analyzed and re-examined again and over. Leave for the moment, dude, let it be.

.


Piss off Cat. You're like a bloody mozzie!  ;D


.

Thanks.

But going back again to Saudi Arabia, I got admitt that, IMHO, we should keep several eyes on them.

First of all I believe that reciprocity should be demanded. I mean, spanish citizens living in Saudi Arabia can't freely pray to their christian God. They aren't allowed to build up mosques, neither travelling over there with a Bible in their hands. They do not respect our belief.

Mosques are built up in Spain with saudi money. Muslims schools too, so I wonder why we do not do with them as they do with us. It is simply reciprocity. And the reason why we remain quiet is because we are a bunch of sissys, still thinking that an appeasseament is better than a fight. The stupid and pusilanimity european tolerance of the muslim intolerance will kill us. Sarko in France is the first european politician to say things very clear.

Imagine that Australia demands a visa to every single spaniard who want to visit your country. Would you be surprised if Spain do the same regarding australians citizens, willing to visit Spain? You probably say: it is fare, it is simply reciprocity.

Thanks Terry, it is really a pleasure for me to talk with you.

Un Saludo

 Lets say that Iran develops the technology to refine weapons grade fissionable material.( What inteligence is telling us they are trying?? The same who told us Saddam was threatining us with the "mushroom cloud"?) Lets say they do develop a nuclear warhead and keep it hidden from the IAEA. Lets say they also develop a missile capable of delivery of such a warhead with some kind if accuracy. Are they going to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Tel Aviv?? Given that Israel has nuclear capability now wouldn't that be "mutually assured destruction"?? Wouldn't Tehran be also wiped off the map? That's not even mentioning what the US would do.
 Given that set of circumstances why would Iran do that ...remember its the Saudis that have shown the greatest penchant for suicide attack not the Iranians. Such a scenario, as far fetched as its possibility is, wouldn't make sense for Iran to realisticly consider.
Again I ask why is Iran our enemy du jour if not for a thirst for the control of their oil??

Gracias ese, and Jabato, you know as well as I do that life does not have to be fair, nor is it. We can only hope for a brighter future that includes the excluded ones now.

Vaya con dios, my friend
Terry


.

Exactely.

When a Radical Islamist regime is in the process of becoming a nuclear power, that become a priority issue way ahead of al-Qaida.

Who cares of bycicle bombers who can kill at best half a dozen civilians at a time, while a fanatic group of Mullahs will have the power to kill 300,000 poeple in a single shot?
Who's the most dangerous in your mind? Who would you care of first? Seriousely...

I'm sorry Terry, but I'm gonna have to agree with freethinker.

There are very obvious political and economic reasons for why we don't piss off Saudi Arabia. In fact, it amazes me how little is ever mentioned in the news about that country. Ever. You'd think they were trying to ignore it...

I'm not a "konspiracist" or anything and I hate the "it's about oil" argument because it is used by the politically ignorant... but also the politically genius.

It's simply the answer and BOTH the intelegent and the ignorant have realized it.

.





No wucking furries mate. This is what the boards are for. I know Iran is the greater threat, but I cannot release that intell. Let me just leave it at that. Sorry.



Warm regards
Terry

One word: Fundamentalism.

When you have a government that is run by a religious sect and supports Islamic radicals to stir up tensions in the ME, anyone willing to die for Allah won't hesitate to push the button. 

Mutually assured destruction gets challenged when those who are not afraid of it begin to contemplate going through with it.

And that is what scares the bee-jesus out of America and the EU.

200th post!

...why was I not upgraded?  ???

Smited for caring ;) .

I think you had to break to 201 for that... but you're a full member now, instead of a petty half member.

I could make a bad sex joke right now, but I will spare you...

Smited for not sharing.  Dirty jokes are always phun.

Actually...maybe not on the ME forum. 

Will applaud later.

But why are you so sure the Iranians pose a bigger nuclear threat than the Saudis? Because Bush and Cheney say so?
 Read this article from Forbes;
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/28/afx2629000.html

Mutually assured destruction does not apply to Iran because they don't have NEAR as many nukes as Russia did. Also, the likes of Norht Korea (a member of the same axis of evil) have been disuaded from persuing their nuclear program... a program which was MUCH farther along the Iran's. For God's sake, they actually DETONATED a nuclear divice and had the ability to strike the west coast of the US.

Iran has a few centrifuges and the US goes balistic.

I see a problem.

March 28th, 2006?  Um, did you just cherry pick this one out of Google to try and prove a point?

Give me more info and then I will believe that Saudis are really trying to pursue a nuclear program. 

It isn't just Bush and Cheney that are all riled up about Iran's nuclear program.


You can thank the Bush doctrine for that.  It's all about pre-emptive strike remember?  No one knows if Iran wants Nuclear energy or weapons because no one knows what type of information to decipher as truth and lies. 

So the Bush Doctrine proposes that we don't take that risk...

Not saying I am for it.  Just supporting my point that Fundamentalists are rabid dogs and need to be taken down.  Yeah, I just said that. 

Oh C'mon... you're smarter than that. I know you are.

We're talking about real, honest enemies that represent a threat and at the moment, Iran and Ahmendijad does not. He's provocative and loud, and I'm not denying that, but the IAEA has spoken on behalf of Iran, saying that the US should refrain from its criticism.

Fundementalists are dangerous because they act on what they say.

Until proof arises that he actually CAN wipe Israel off the map or threaten American interests, he's just a loud-mouthed ass hat. He's no more whorth a war over than Chavez is.

When a country is as wealthy as the Saudis are there is little need to, "re-invent the wheel", so to speak, with regard to developing nuclear weapons. You don't really need to look very hard to find evidence that they have been in some kind of nuclear collusion with Pakistan. Some say its a protction agreement, many are concearned that the weapons have been purchased and are on Saudi soil and ready to go.
 On the other hand as Abraxas pointed out the Iranians have some centrifuges and the IAEA says no big deal there yet. Again if the concearn over the Iranian threat is valid, why aren't the Saudis at least equally worrisome?
 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/saudi/index.html
 http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_40a.html
 http://hinzsight.blogspot.com/2006/04/saudis-nuclear-program-still-in-works.html
 http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/?p=1899
 http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=18&issue_id=661&article_id=4680
 http://americanfuture.net/?p=1564

.





Security Pact with the U.S. We have bases there.  ;)


regards
Terry


.

OK, your right.  Sometimes my stepfathers jargin gets into my head somes time.  I do agree with his jargin though.  He is a smart guy and been around a lot more than I have. 

But your still right.  This time, we need proof before we go guns ablazing.

Thanks for the links Freethinker.  Your right.  They are in the same boat and we shouldn't be extending our attention just to Iran.  As Abraxas has pointed out,  a little too overextended attention.

But here's the difference: The Saudis are our friends, and the Iranians are not.

Thank you very much for such a delightful and pleasent debate. I'm not used to an ending like this, but rather having the debate sprial into nothing or both parties leaving "agreeing to disagree".

Thank you very much.

Also, don't get me wrong, caution is of course reccomended and I don't blame people for being that way... I just don't want us doing what we did in Iraq. Again.

Your reply got lost in the void...

I totally agree.  Iraq was a mistake and we should of known before we went in there.  We have Rumsfeld to blame for that. 

Now getting out of there, that's a different story...  ;)

.





"WE" don't go anywhere with that, Israel does.  ;)


Regards
Terry


.

 ;D

.





Absolutely, as I mentioned a few posts back. Good for armament sales too!  8)



- Terry


.

Terry, our replies are disappearing into the void! (http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/scared/scared0011.gif)

Yes they are mate. 'Beyond the black stump' as it is called in Australia (means way rural).



- Warm regards
Terry


.

Like freethinker said. The Saudis are our friends and the Iranians are not. I'm not about to sit here and defend the reasons for the invasion given by the administration, but honestly, take the precedent to its logical conclusion. At least in theory we didn't attack Iraq for cultural differences. No one is saying we should attack Iran for cultural differences. The key element is stability. Saudi Arabia is stable. Iran is not. S.A. citizens may choose to leave and become foreign fighters, but it is extremely unlikely that they are funding them to do so. The thought of Saudi Arabia having a nuclear weapons, doesn't really bother me. Why? Probably because it doesn't look like they're playing ball with us now just so they can get their nukes and turn on us or israel later. In an industrial and economic sense and in many ways a foreign politics sense, Saudi Arabia has acclimated itself to the western world. Culturally? Absolutely not. The simple reality is that Saudi Arabia is not a threatening, destabilizing element in the middle east and as far as governmental leadership goes they are not adverserial with us.

Iran on the other hand is unstable, and led by a certifiable nutball. Why let a country have nukes when it's volatile enough that next week someone else might have their finger on the trigger. If you had to choose who to give a nuclear weapon to either Iran or Saudi Arabia, would you seriously say, "Well you had a lot of people go fight in Iraq so I think we should give it to the madman." False dilemma sure, but it makes for an interesting perspective.

.





Israel is ready to TCOB on the four or five sites in Iran in a conventional manner and are 'Mission Ready', having flown numerous flight profiles to the Western Med and back. Also, there were three U.S. Carrier Battle Task forces in the eastern Med idling. Two have since left...



- Terry


.

 That was Gojira that said;  "The Saudis are our friends and the Iranians are not", not I.
 That leads me back to my original question, If we look at all the evidence without preconceptions or presuppositions what country has been and is the greater terrorist threat based on who did what and who has what weaponry.
What makes Ahmadinejad a threat so great that we must crush him. What makes the Saudis so immune to being called on to explain why most of the terrorism coming from the middle east originates from their kingdom?
 I know many of you don't want to hear it but its so plain you can't ignore it. Fact is that we have access to Saudi oil but none to Iranian oil. Funny isn't it that we had no access to Iraqi oil either and their leader was said to have nuclear weapons and was a "madman and a Hitler"?? Does any of this campaign bush is wageing sound familiar? Will we be taken in again, six years later and one country over??
 Who this administration finds threatening has little to do with ACTS of terror or SUPPORT of terror or nuclear capabilities it has everything to do with who's oil we do or don't have access to.
 By the way Vasily welcome to IAP glad to have you aboard.

Doesn't this quote from the beloved Bush sounds familiar. You are with us or against us. ffs Saddam was a friend of the US back in the 80s when they were arming him to the teeth to wage a war on Iran. A tactic used to diminsh the power and influence of both countries in the ME without nterrupting the flow of oil. Sadam even used chemicals aginst kurds and iraninas and not nobody asked why only to surface 12 years later when beating the drums for a "war on terror". He became a liability when his influence in the middle east was completely diminished after the first gulf war defeat and guess what there's a new kid on the block aka Ahmadienejad and what better pretext to attack Iran other than Iran will "wipe Israel off the map" with their acclaimed nuclear weapon detterent. Totally ott and blown out of proportion but hey they are the enemy no 1 enemy now and the policy is to do whatever to get the mud stick. Maybe and only maybe if the iraninan government had a brown nose just like the saudi arabian and other ME puppet government that would have pissed off Bush and maybe Iran would have become a proxy ally. But the fact of the matter is they aren't. The brits have capitalised on this opportunity for almost 30 years. If I were to encapsulate it in one word Iran's actions are what can be misconstrued as 'disobedience' and therefore a change in policy.

Welcome to IAP, but I have to disagree with just about EVERYTHING you said.


Iran, as a whole, is not unstable.

They have a loud mouthed president who can't stop telling people how they SHOULD live.

Sounds a lot like teh US president, actually.


Incorrect. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest world wide sponsor for terrorism, including Al Quida. They also provide a great deal of the man power to that orginization and is the single power responcible for the most bombing in Iraq.


Show me that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons, please.

Show me that Iran has an intention to actually blow up Israel.

Show me that Iran has been uncooperative thus far about their nuclear program.


Iran has NO capability to strike the US. Iran is not dangerous.

Saudi Arabian citizens have continuously killed American soldiers in Iraq.

If anyone is a distabelizing factor over there it's Saudi Arabia.


Iran's government is not unstable. The Parliment is actually quite united against Ahmanijad.


Again, SHOW ME THAT IRAN IS PERSUING A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.


No it doesn't.

Before I even made that coince I would ask why it's our decision to make.

Who are we to say that some countries can persue nuclear programs and others can't? Also, there is NO PROOF that Iran is even building a bomb, and your ability to tote the hard liners of the US government is astounding and disheartening.

.


Abraxas,

Why are you deliberately avoiding Israel in this? IMHO it is they that ultimately controls or destroys the Mid-East.   ;)


Regards
Terry


.

A completley RIDICULOUS evidentiary standard. A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Iran has a decades-long and well-proven track record of supporting terrorists, lying about their nuclear activities, and illegal arms sales.

.




I can agree with that because it is documented in oh so many ways.


.

Sorry freethinker, I didn't intend to misquote you. And thank you for the welcome.

As to Abraxas systematic decomposition, my defense of US relations with Saudi Arabia does not automatically imply that Iran is the opposite as your mode of reply seems to suggest. However, since you asked it is well known that Iran maintains a uranium mine and processing facilities, as well as a nuclear reactor. If you are willing to just take the Iranians word that it's strictly for power production then you are just as guilty of subjective support for Iran as I would be for Saudi Arabia.


That's like answering "Would you rather die by fire or water?" with "Why would I want to die?!?" Hypothetical question, nothing else. Moreover you can't deny that the world as a whole has a vested interest in who has nuclear capability. There is every reason to be concerned and watchful of any developing country pursuing nuclear technology.

Saudi Arabia in spite of its admittedly checkered practices has at the very least been responsive to diplomacy and doesn't shoot off their mouth about driving Israel into the sea.

I would still have to say that concentration on Iran as opposed to Saudi Arabia looks like a good choice. That doesn't make Saudi Arabia any better, just not as bad.

P.S. We all know just how little power the Iranian Parliament has. Decisions are made by a few moslem clerics and the Council of Guardians arbitrarily disqualifies candidates at will.

Saoudis are jumping in the same boat, in the same arm race, starting their own program for the very reason that Iran is a major threat for them.

The first target for Iran is NOT Israel (why should it be, except rocks and jews there is nothing of value overthere). No, Iran's first target for a potential nuclear attack is Saudi Arabia and all the arab countries around the Persic Gulf.

It would be crazy for Saudis to watch Iran building a nuclear arsenal and not trying to have a detterent,
Because once Iran has the bomb they are toast. Iran would be the only nuclear power in a region ablaze with fanaticism and tribal wars. You can imagine the result.

Iran has installed 3000 centrifuges to purify uranium. For those who don't know yet: That will allow them to enrich enough uranium for one nuclear bomb per year.
This is not "Bush and Cheney drumming for yet another oil war" but the fact finding of the IAEA investingations. Unfortunately.

The good news is that all these centrifuges are not working at full capacity and they still don't have the know how to build such a bomb.

Don't take *my* word for it. Take the IAEA's:

IAEA: Iran cooperating in Nuclear Investigation - 8/30/2007 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083000460.html)


Of course... and thus far that "watchful eye" (the IAEA) has told the US to stop it's criticism of Iran's nuclear program.


I think you are overly concerned with what people say.

FACT: Saudi Arabians are going to Iraq in droves and training Iraqis to kill US troops.

FACT: Saudi Arabia is the country where the majority of the September 11th hijackers came from.

FACT: Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian.

I'm not saying we invade for these reasons, but it's a damn good reason why we should stop consider Saudi Arabia an ally. After all, part of our reasoning for invading Iraq was for supposed possible involvement in September 11th.

It is quite clear that Saudi Arabia played a BIGGER part.


Do you know that Ahmenijad is up for re-election soon?

Iran has a strengthening generation that is becoming more "westernized". You see them, even the women, wearing jeans and colorful new clothes. Meanwhile, the aging populations (x > 40) are the ones going to the "Death to America" gatherings.

Iran's changing and I don't think the US should invade, especially since we have absolutely NO REASON to.

It's incredible that people think we actually have a right to take action against Iran. Offensive, actually.

.


Fred mate,

I'm sorry I have to disagree with you on the Iranian Nuke Target. Iran announced publicly that Israel will be the target (Tel Aviv they said) and that they would like nothing better than Israel in the ocean.


Regards
Terry


.

Bingo.  That is all that needs to be said. 

The key to Iran is patience.  That is all we need.  Well, that and a little humility to show the Iranian people that it is better to be our friend than our enemy (and I think most of them know that).  The age demographics in Iran can not be overlooked.  That is key to this whole thing.  With half the population under the age of 35, there is a growing core of people that are unimpressed with the old ways and want change.

The quickest way to screw this up is to bomb Iran.  That will rally the people around the Iranian government and we won't recover for decades. 

I dare go this far, but I think this is a fairly accurate assesment:

Bombing Iran will eliminate any chance of good relations with the US for at least another half-century.  And, Iran is KEY to the whole war on terror.  They can lead that region believe it or not.  And, with the right people in power, doing and saying the right things, we'll win in Afghanistan, we'll win in Iraq, and we will win in the Middle East.  Iran is the key to making it happen.  If we bomb Iran, we will LOSE in the end.  Not militarily, but politically.  We didn't bomb the Soviets, and we won.  They were a FAR greater threat in 1955 than Iran is right now. 

Disclaimer:  I'm not sticking up of Ahmadinejad.  I find him to be a pretty disgusting guy.  But he isn't the worst and he isn't the prize.  We want the Iranian people on our side.  No better way to screw that up than to bomb them.

Thank you Crypto for saying everything I was in too much of a hurry to say.

I concur.  Thanks for the great point!

Gojira/Abraxas,

My pleasure.

I take the Iran issue very seriously because I believe it to be our last chance at redemption in the Middle East.  I've been saying for 2 years now that Iran should be off-limits to attack (unless of course they provoke it with a military action against our forces).  So far, that hasn't happened.

People need to think strategically when it comes to Iran.  They are a natural ally of the US, but most people don't know it.  Their democracy is far from perfect, but it is heads-and-shoulders above most governments in the region.  They've been practicing a form of democracy for a number of years now.  It could be better (read, more democratic), but it is headed in the right direction.  They are a minority in the Middle East as well.  Muslims are about 80% Sunni and Iran is a predominately Shiite nation.  They are also Persians, not Arabs.  Two strikes against them in their own back yard.  And they have Russia and China (two giants) sitting right on top of them for the most part.  Having the US as a buddy is a good move for them from a security standpoint.  The people are well-educated, and I think largely unsympathetic to the extremist movements.  These are all BIG advantages when it comes to building a fruitful relationship with them.

I've said this before, and it is a little corny, but it really is accurate from what I can see.  We aren't going to "win" against Iran with bombs and bullets.  We will "win" with iPods and Playstations.  Despite what many will tell you, American culture is pervasive and highly contagious.  From fashion, to sports, music (for some reason) and movies, we have an arsenal of weapons at our disposal for bringing people on our side - so to speak.  Perhaps what makes our culture so appealing is the fact that it is a little bit of everyone's culture.  From Africa, Europe, Asia - everywhere, it has all been tossed together to create something distinctively American.

The point is that we have a chance to get some real friends without working too hard or mobilizing our military.  The effort right now should be on statesmanship.  It may look like pandering to the Mullahs, but it needs to be explicitly stated that we aren't out to make friends with the Mullahs, but make friends with ordinary Iranians.  They should see us as human, and moreover, as equals in a region that desperately needs some good news.

We must tread carefully with Iran.  Sanctions can be useful if not overdone and if they are complemented with diplomacy and good statesmanship. 

We have an image problem in the Middle East, and Iran may be the quickest to give us a second chance.  If we bomb them, you can rest assured that there won't be a third chance.

 Well said Crypto,(applaud) if only there was some way to convey this kind of logic and clear thinking into the administration ... but I fear their minds are made up as to what they plan to do regardless of what makes sense. 

Reply to Crypto:


That is the real truth you spelled out there.

And because of that truth is getting understood by the crowds, the current Axis of Evil american administration is going to do something to not happen.

I think events are in prep mode, I estimate weeks, maybe months.

Another thing: the Axis is into partnership with the Zionist Conspiracy Association, which doesn't like local competition into the region.

As you can see: fogetabotit

You may be right.  I have a hard time believing that everyone in the administration has blinders on, but I guess it is possible.  Someone has to know history and someone has to be aware of the political victory we could get on the cheap if we just relax........Ahmadinejad is not making our task any easier, but we need to stop giving him the ammunition that will keep him and the Mullahs in power.  The best way to do that is approach Iran delicately and with a sincere attitude towards peace.  It will work out........

I guess that could be the case, but I am not convinced there is evil intent.  What I do think is that the Administration lacks the ability to show some humility and admit that their path is the wrong one.  Let's not fool ourselves - this isn't just an American issue.  The leadership in Iran is not saying anything that could be considered positive either.  I'd imagine that if Americans were in the streets 3 days a week burning the Iranian flag and calling for "Death to Iran" that we would hear no end to it.  Unfortunately, whoever budges on the stance with Iran will be used as propaganda in Iran.  What else is new.  Hillary Clinton shot down Barak Obama's idea of talking with the Iranians because she didn't want to be "used as propaganda."  Newsflash Hill, you already are being used as propaganda - might as well make the correct strategic decision and ignore what Ahmadinejad says.

The administration has made some boneheaded moves for sure, but I don't think there is an evil intent there.  Condi Rice does not strike me as evil, nor does Bush.  I do think they overestimate the ability of our military to actually accomplish the long-term goals.  That, or they have no long-term goals and see the military as a nice, quick way to get what they want now.  That isn't to say anything negative about our military - I am a firm believer in the virtuousness and goodness of the American military.  It is simply to say that the answer here is not military in nature.


Well, that has been predicted since June 2005 and it hasn't happened yet.  I am sure the administration is planning a military response.  They would be deliquent in their duties if they were not.  However, that should be seen as an action we take ONLY if explicitly provoked by Iran (meaning they strike first).

The thing is, the US has nothing to gain in a war with Iran.  Iran is not a threat on any front to the US.  They are not a threat militarily, economically, technologically, culturally, or in any other way.  We make them a political threat by charging in to save the world from their supposed nuclear weapons program.  Even if Iran were to get those weapons, what would they do with them?  They would never dare strike the US with them as that would demand a total response using our own nuclear arsenal (probably 100 years more advanced than what Iran has).  That is nuclear doctrine.  They could possibly attempt to go after Israel, but then again I think that is a load of crap as well.  Israel has them beat in capability as well, and Iran could not strike Israel without causing enormous harm to innocent people who Iran claims to be fighting for.  This would also provoke a response by the US and most likely in the nuclear realm.

This is not MAD.  This is AD.  There is nothing "mutual" about destruction if Iran attacks the US or our allies with nuclear weapons.  There will be assured destruction of Iran and Iran only.  And of course, this is all assuming that they are after a weapon.  Even if they are, by the time they develop anything we should have to worry about, we will have obsoleted it by then.

I don't think there will be an attack on Iran.  I think the administration knows that it would be a bad move strategically.  Instead, I think they are attempting to show absolute steadfastness and resolve when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions.  I think it is a bluff.

Crypto,
you make some good points, but don't forget this:  There are those radical extremists in Iran for whom much of the American Cultural Arsenal you speak of is just as abhorant as bombs. 

So, lets say we engage with Iran, open negotiations, reforms happen there.  Years down the road an embassy opens, trade is normalized, we cooperate with the government on oil policy and security issues.  iPods and American movies are found everywhere in Tehran.  Don't be too surprised when we have another 9/11 carried out by Iranian nationals.  Then, when we isolate Syria for developing its nuclear weapons capability, Freethinker will post a thread titled "Why Syria not the Iranians?"

Personally I'm not sure i understand what the US is supposed to engage in open negotiations with Iran at all.

For what purpose? To talk them out of making a bomb? I think that ship has sailed if it was ever in the harbor. I just can't shake the feeling that if the US's tactics were more along the lines of...


Ahmadinejad: "We're interested in making a bomb"

The US: ""

Ahmadinejad: "We just bought a bunch of pricey weapons."

The US: "Good on you! ...and you are who now?"

Ahmadinejad: "We don't the holocaust never happened."

The US: "Hey that's super! So, whattya wanna do about this embargo?"

Ahmadinejad: "We have a bomb"

The US: "Ok well you be careful with that now cuz it's loaded. Can we interest you in some automobiles?"

...there wouldn't be such an attraction to "defying" the US.



Ahk

Crypto,

How are you stopping their nuclear program with iPods and Playstations?
You aren't going to stop them.

Of course that a war with Iran will be a disaster from every sides of the picture. But when Iran will be aproaching nuclear capability, a bombing campain will start on them.
The West will do its best to urge Iran to stop by diplomatic and economic means and hopefuly they will succeed but if they don't there will be war.

What you don't seem to understand is that letting Iran develop nukes is NOT a possibility or a "last resort". No way that that happens.
It's not the question of whether Iran is a treath to the US or not, or whether "Israel should be wiped off the map". It's the question that Iran should never have nukes no matter the deal.

I'm aware that there will always be those who despise us - no matter what.  Our culture, religion, values, wealth, lifestyle, etc. will ALWAYS offend someone, somewhere.  That is just the way it goes.

However, the number of extremists are very small when compared with the number of people who really don't care one way or another.  The number of extremists intent on killing innocent Americans is even smaller than that. 

I agree that terrorism is a major problem and it is not just a law enforcement issue.  My point in regards to Iran is that the population to a large extent is not fooled by their leadership - they are moderates.  This is at the heart of the issue.

We should be concerned with regime change in Iran from the inside.  That can happen if we play our cards right.  We won't have to do any heavy lifting, and the Iranian people will have little reason to put someone in power who is staunchly anti-American.  A moderate government in Tehran will be far more likely to be on our side when it comes to terrorism.  They will also be far less likely to blame America and Israel at every opportunity.  THis lack of finger-pointing on its own will further decrease the extremist numbers.

This will not be a quick fix - but it will be a long-term one.  And, if Iran becomes a greater force for stability and positive change in the Middle East, it is more likely that other populations will be moved to action in their respective countries.

A friendly relationship between Iran and the US really could help our cause in the Middle East.  They are also in a position to help significantly in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I'd really like to accomplish our objectives in both places - and I think Iran is a big part of the solution.

I don't mean to suggest that iPods and Playstations will stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.  I'm suggesting that if we use our cultural weapons effectively, we don't have to worry one way or the other about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Not only will they not be a threat - they will have no reason or desire to ever strike us.  This should be the goal.

If we do strike, we rally the people behind the government, setting us back half a century when it comes to building good relations with them. 

The last point is that we can not stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  Some day, they will get them.  The trick is making sure that when they do get them, that they don't have any reason or desire to use them against us or our friends.  Bombing them is certainly not the right way to go on that front.

I'm so tired of asking this...

SHOW ME THEY ARE BUILDING A BOMB. SHOW ME THERE IS SOMETHING TO STOP.


That's incorrect. Iran doesn't even HAVE nuclear weapons and we're ratteling our sabre already. Meanwhile, North Korea is testing long range missiles that can reach the US and even detonated a nuclear weapon... and we bought them off.

US foreign policy is hypocrtical, at best, if not downright aweful.


STOP LYING. YOU HAVE NO PROOF AT ALL. THEY'RE NOT PURSUING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THE IAEA HAS SAID THIS.

I'm sorry, but I'm so tired of hearing people talk about Iran and nukes like they already own them. They don't.

they don't have to pursue weapons.
See: UN SC res 1696

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm

“2.   Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA,

"demands" is a pretty serious word in a UN res.

It is also a Chapter VII resolution (Chapter 7, UN charter), which authorizes military force.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.


Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Iran is also a signatory to the NPT.
Iran admitted to the IAEA in 2002 that it was violating the NPT. The IAEA was allowed into these new programs, and uncovered numerous other illegal activities, sites, and activities that were prohibited yet still going on, Iran was still hiding more. The IAEA uncovered this all during the middle of 2003.Towards the end of that year (oct) Iran, made a new corrected, more detailed declaration about its nuclear activities. A few month following that, the IAEA uncovered additional undeclared parts of the program, and a lack of cooperation on Iran's part.

• Uranium Imports: Iran failed to report that it had purchased natural uranium (1,000 kg of
UF6, 400 kg of UF4, and 400 kg of UO2) from China in 1991, and its subsequent transfer for
further processing. Iran acknowledged the imports in February 2003.

• Uranium conversion: Iran did not inform the IAEA of its use of the imported uranium in
tests of its uranium conversion processes, including “uranium dissolution, purification using
pulse columns, and the production of uranium metal, and the associated production and loss
of nuclear material.” Iran acknowledged this failure in February 2003.

• Uranium enrichment: Iran failed to report that it had used 1.9 kg of the imported UF6 to
test P1 centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company centrifuge workshop in 1999 and 2002.
In its October 2003 declaration to the IAEA, Iran first admitted to introducing UF6 into a
centrifuge in 1999, and into as many as 19 centrifuges in 2002. Iran also failed to declare the
associated production of enriched and depleted uranium.

• Hidden Sites: Iran did not declare to the IAEA the existence of a pilot enrichment facility
at the Kalaye Electric Company Workshop, and laser enrichment plants at the Tehran
Nuclear Research center and at Lashkar Ab’ad. Because experiments at these sites involved
the use of nuclear material in equipment, Iran was obligated to report them to the IAEA.

• Laser Isotope Enrichment Experiments: Iran failed to report that in 1993 it imported 50
kg of natural uranium metal, and that it used 8 kg of this for atomic vapor laser isotope
separation (AVLIS) experiments at Tehran Nuclear Research Center between 1999 to 2000,
and 22 kg of the metal for AVLIS experiments at Lashkar Ab’ad between 2002 to 2003.3
These activities were ultimately acknowledged in an October 2003 declaration.

• Plutonium Experiments: Iran did not report to the IAEA that it had produced uranium
dioxide (UO2) targets, irradiated them in the Tehran Research Reactor, and then separated
the plutonium from the irradiated targets. Iran also failed to report the production and
transfer of waste associated with these activities and that it had stored unprocessed irradiated
targets at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. In later meetings with the IAEA, Iran said
that it conducted the plutonium separation experiments between 1988 and 1993 using
shielded glove boxes at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.


These also the few (billion) tidbits of evidence that Iran support terrorism.
Which makes posession of Uranium very dangerous.. Iran won't build a nuke. Will iran give any comfort, information or support of any kind to a terrorist organization? Can you prove it?

So now this would mean the US follow the rules and sanctions of the UN?

C'mon, that argument would be torn apart by anyone who can remember how heavily the US pursued attacking Iraq WITHOUT approval back in March of 2003.


Same goes for Saudi Arabia.


Do I have to? I don't have to disprove ANYthing.

It's your job to prove that Iran is indeed dangerous and deserves to be invaded/attacked by US forces.

Crypto,

The point that you didn't catch is that Iran is not dangerous in regard to the US homeland security but to global security.
Your view is too narrow minded: "Iran will never nuke the US, let them have nukes". No.

The danger is that a nuclear war erupts somewhere. I don't care of the US or even Israel in this case. My worries are for Saudis. And Saudis are or will be seriousely thinking about aquiring nukes if Iran has them.
But not only Saudis. The whole ME will be under threat.

I 100% agree that good relations with Iran is the best for us all (EU and US) and that its population is potentialy our best friends. But their nuclear program is going to destroy all these hopes for good relations and peaceful democratic developement.
We will rather live 50 years with an Iranian population hating us than 50 years with them loving us while their crazy mullahs have nukes.
There is no way the West will live and tolerate a Iranian nuclear power. The West is ready to do a war for that reason alone. And IMHO, it will be a very good and valid reason. We don't care much that they will be able kill each others by millions in a matter of days, but we don't want radioactive cloudds circling the planet.

This is something you have to realize, Crypto.

---

Abraxas

So, you still need proofs?
Sorry, but I'm past the copy-paste waste of time.
I won't even bother trying to tell you that the Saudi governement doesn't support terrorism.

Israel seems to violate many UN resolutions including keeping their nuclear arsenal secret from media for many years before the whole damn saga was revealed. Don't see them caring what other countries think when they trample all over the UN resolutions do you? Anyway don't mean to be fastidious SuperDuper, but since you have gone out of your way to cherry pick and search the google to come up with some old stories there is still no evidence that they are on their way to get their nuclear bomb according to IAEA.

do you know anyone who can remember? Get to tearin'!



See, the way I remember it, there existed a state of war between UN-authorized forces and Iraq  since 1991. Iraq was in breach of the terms and conditions it had signed to. Resolution 1441, in 2002, said this:

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restoreinternational peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement


Notice that resolution 660 declared war on Iraq and authorized the military enforcement...by member states...to uphold subsequent resolutions....there were 17(?) subsequent resolutions (Chapter 7 resolutions)..The above being the last one, which specifically Recognizes:
 "the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,"

Are you saying the war in Iraq was not authorized? According to the UN??? Presidential War Powers? I sincerely doubt it. Are you saying that any UN rules were broken? Which one? Are you saying Iran and SA support terrism? Are you saying Iranian action WRT their nuclear program has not been a dangerous route. Respectfully...What's your point?

Israel is not an NPT signatory. To whom are they obligated?

Actually Afghanistan was moreso "unauthorized" than Iraq.
Might be a tough sell, but it's true.

you have gone out of your way to cherry pick and search the google to come up with some old stories there is still no evidence that they are on their way to get their nuclear bomb according to IAEA.

I've given you evidence of the EXACT route to a clandestine nuclear bomb. The evidence you offered that proves Iran is NOT building a bomb was: Israel has nuclear bombs. Who's cherry picking evidence? Good grief.

Personally, I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq with Iraq in 2003. It partly stems from the point of view that I did not think Iraq poses a real threat after the first Gulf war and the evidence of WMD or missles loaded with nuclear warheads that can reach the bases in Cyprus or within the vicinity were made on a false premise. Bearing that in mind I have to say I have little respect UN as it has become a body where the permanent 5 meembers can influence the decision and others that will violate it unconditionally.

I know they are not signatory. My point of contention is that Iran had already accepted a tougher inspection of the IAEA before the talks broke out. If they are put uder unnecessary pressure they will withdraw from the signatory as North Korea has done and will keep their nuclear activity secret as Israel has already done.

"Third, contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak. This is regrettable."
                 --IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
Statement to the Fifty-First Regular Session of the IAEA
                        General Conference 2007
                         17 September 2007 | Vienna, Austria
                          by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei

The Googz...Results 1 - 10 of about 2,190,000 for iaea iran. (0.17 seconds)

So what? It still doesn't mean that Iran has nuclear bomb and even if they did do you really think you could search it on google?

I haven't played this in awhile...Am I rubber, or glue?

So far nobody has applied to the UN for sanction against Israel in regard to their nuclear weapons AND offered funds and other material means to apply these sanctions.

"What you don't seem to realise is that Israel has conveniently ignored many UN resolutions in regard to their own issues with palestinians."

What you don't seem to realize is the sickening double standard. why pass a resolution againt Israel for pulling out of Gaza and taking the non-violent, non-permenent measure of building a fence, which has proven to have saved lives....and miss the whole, busstop meat bombing, daily artillery rocket baraging problem that brought the fence on in the first place??? Isreal should sit tight at the UN and the whole time, tell the UN to get bent. They should stay pround and not worry. Honestly, they can probably outsmart, if not kick the arse of the UN, anyway.

“while the inconveniences by building the fence were reversible, the murder of Israelis by Palestinian terrorists was not.  The fence saved lives.  The moment terror ended was the same moment the fence would no longer be necessary.”

  --Israeli delegate to the UN.

You missed the point. I am not here to attack Israel or defend those suicide bombers that are making life a living hell. The issue at hand is you brining up UN resolutons that Iran has not conformed in regards to their nuclear activities. My point of contention is what is the point of passing the resolutons if other countries like  conveniently ignore them?
It's the principle of it! You are repeating what I have said here already. If Israel ignores the UN resolution why should other countries like Iran conform? Afterall that was the basis for the US to ignore the other members of the UN and invade Iraq unilaterally. That is the double standard but it also confirms the lack of credibility for UN.

You missed the point. I am not here to attack Israel or defend those suicide bombers that are making life a living hell. The issue at hand is you brining up UN resolutons that Iran has not conformed in regards to their nuclear activities.

You're not making a point. you ARE attacking Israel. You are oblivious to the difference between a UN res and a Chapter 7 UN res. The issue is not adherence to UN resolutions, the issue is legality of attacking Iran economically or militarily because of the nuclear activity. I outlined how it can be legal to attack Iran and not SA. You, on the other hand, have a problem with Israel. Can you tell me under what pretext any punitive course of action can be taken againt Israel? The difference is a chapter 7 resolution. hope this helps.

Israel unintentionally kills Pali civilians in an *obviously* defensive war:
               "I am deeply concrned at the killing of innocent civilians....we call for an immediate and full investigation"  ---Kofi Annan

Pali terrorists *deliberatley* fire thousands of artillery rockets into Israel, destroying homes and schools and killing innocent civilians:
             "................." ---Kofi Annan

Israel kills terrorist mastermind Ahmed Yassin:
            "Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution,"--kofi Annan