El Baradei: No evidence of Iran Weapons

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_re_us/us_iran

According to Mohamed El Baradei, there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Just like with Saddam, all we have is tough talk.

If there is actual physical evidence of Iran trying to make nuclear weapons, then an attack should be on the table. But without it, we have no right to hit them.

[GreNME]

Why do you hate America and love al Qaeda? 9/11!

[TragicMonkey]

Well, nobody listened last time, why should this time be any different?

[Thunder]

Gren- I hope your joking. Those who seek to take this nation into another Middle East war, based on faulty intelligence, which would risk a much wider war, are the real ones who hate America.

You cannot claim to love America while you are willing to risk countless American lives, based on very iffy intelligence...from the comfort of home.

[GreNME]

Gren- I hope your joking. Those who seek to take this nation into another Middle East war, based on faulty intelligence, which would risk a much wider war, are the real ones who hate America.

I wouldn't call what I was saying necessarily kidding. It's more frustrated that any attempt to point out what you did-- that rushing headlong with the war drums is not the brightest course to take-- is responded to in basically more verbose versions of exactly what I said. I am, if taking the word of some others here, a terrorist-supporting, sharia-loving Amero-hater.


You cannot claim to love America while you are willing to risk countless American lives, based on very iffy intelligence...from the comfort of home.

Why not? There are obviously a large number of people-- and it looks like a sizable number on this very forum-- who think you (general usage) can.

[WildCat]

Those who seek to take this nation into another Middle East war,
Can you list the people advocating an attack on Iran at this time?

[corplinx]

Can you list the people advocating an attack on Iran at this time?

It seems that at this time, there are more critics of Iran critics than there are Iran critics. And the threat of these Iran critics is greatly overstated.

:-)

[GreNME]

Can you list the people advocating an attack on Iran at this time?

George W Bush
Dick Cheney
Condi Rice

They've all said that it is an option if the case seems "necessary," and the administration seems to be chugging along full steam with the attempt to make a case. So if you're asking who has said "Rawr, we need to attack Iran now!" the answer is no one. If you're asking the honest question of who seems to be trying to position the US into an attack on Iran, the answer is the current presidential administration.

[Oliver]

Why do you hate America and love al Qaeda? 9/11!


Why does Bush hate America and ignores Al Qaeda?
Why does his policies endorse and increase Terror?

There is no evidence for a nuclear weapon program in
Iran. That's a fact and has nothing to do with what
your stance is. Facts speak for themselves, don't they?

[GreNME]

Why does Bush hate America and ignores Al Qaeda?
Why does his policies endorse and increase Terror?

There is no evidence for a nuclear weapon program in
Iran. That's a fact and has nothing to do with what
your stance is. Facts speak for themselves, don't they?

Yeah... Except when they don't

[Oliver]

Yeah... Except when they don't


The JREF-Forum is the right place to present evidence supporting
someone's woo paranoia. Feel free to provide evidence the Russians,
Germans and Israelis don't have.... :rolleyes:

[gtc]

:rolleyes:

GreNME was making a joke.

[corplinx]

So if you're asking who has said "Rawr, we need to attack Iran now!" the answer is no one.

So all this chest beating about countries not going to war with Iran is the same sort of hollow thumping the US is doing over Iran's nuclear program?

[Oliver]

CNN is supporting Parky's POV ... CONSPIRACY!!!1!! :p


IAEA: No active nuke arms program in Iran (http://us.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/28/sot.el.baradei.iran.cnn) http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/global/icons/video_icon.gif (http://us.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/28/sot.el.baradei.iran.cnn)

[quixotecoyote]

So all this chest beating about countries not going to war with Iran is the same sort of hollow thumping the US is doing over Iran's nuclear program?

Yep, as long as no one is calling for war RIGHT NOW, there's no need to be concerned about the political maneuverings to get us into a war in the future.

[corplinx]

Yep, as long as no one is calling for war RIGHT NOW, there's no need to be concerned about the political maneuverings to get us into a war in the future.

Yes, quips during presidential debates and tough talk by Dick Cheney are political maneuverings necessary to start a war.

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, quips during presidential debates and tough talk by Dick Cheney are political maneuverings necessary to start a war.

So you honestly see no broad attempts to paint Iran as a threat to the USA, suggest they have or will soon have WMD's, and put military action on the table?

[fuelair]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_re_us/us_iran

According to Mohamed El Baradei, there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Just like with Saddam, all we have is tough talk.

If there is actual physical evidence of Iran trying to make nuclear weapons, then an attack should be on the table. But without it, we have no right to hit them.

You are, I hope, aware that bringing up one person per thread who claims to not think (think being the operative and eminently discussible, word) Iran is after WMD (nukes in this case) is not particularly compelling. Particularly when it is necessary to explain who each person is and why we should invest any belief in them and their beliefs.
Note, I have not expressed my own beliefs on the topic here, I merely note the inefficiency of your expression - quantity does not = proof.

[WildCat]

George W Bush
Dick Cheney
Condi Rice

Please provide the quotes where they advocate an attack on Iran, now. This should be a simple thing to do if you are correct.

[WildCat]

The JREF-Forum is the right place to present evidence supporting
someone's woo paranoia. Feel free to provide evidence the Russians,
Germans and Israelis don't have.... :rolleyes:
So can you find a quote from these countries claiming Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? And please explain why Russia is delaying completion of Iran's nuclear reactor if they are certain they don't have a nuke program...:rolleyes: :boggled:

[WildCat]

Those who seek to take this nation into another Middle East war, based on faulty intelligence,
Yes, it's EXACTLY like what happened in Iraq! So now all that needs to happen is for Iran to be expelled from a neighbor they invaded, followed by 12 years of violating a cease-fire agreement and failure to comply with multiple enforceable UN resolutions, and sometime in the next 15 years or so Bush and Cheney will invade Iran!

Exactly the same thing.

[Cleon]

So can you find a quote from these countries claiming Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program?

Took me all of two seconds googling (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/putin.iran/).


And please explain why Russia is delaying completion of Iran's nuclear reactor if they are certain they don't have a nuke program...:rolleyes: :boggled:

Who knows? The Russians, in case you haven't noticed, are bat-dren crazy and more than a little paranoid.

[GreNME]

Please provide the quotes where they advocate an attack on Iran, now. This should be a simple thing to do if you are correct.

Did you bother to read past what you quoted? No one is saying "we need to go to war right now," but each of those three have stated quite clearly that strikes are on the table. Added to that is the fact that there has been so much open scrutiny of Iran's aid to Iraqi insurgents, even though Saudi Arabian sources are giving more money and more Saudis are actually crossing into Iraq to fight for the insurgents. There is a clear cognitive dissonance in the way in which the US administration is using rhetoric against Iran-- accusations to nuke programs, accusations of helping insurgents-- while publicly known data gives indications that Iran is very likely not the top offender of supplying the insurgency in Iraq against the United States like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Patraeus, and pundit-after-pundit has been leading many of us to believe.

Let's not get into the pedantic "did so-and-so say exactly those very same words?" argument. They are beating the war drums for Iran through implication and misdirection, using many of the same tactics used to get us into Iraq, and the onyl reason we aren't currently embroiled in a war with Iran is because Iraq is so unpopular among the American people and the administration (while possibly duplicitous and eager to fight) is not exactly stupid. Greedy, maybe. Ethically challenged, maybe. Not quite as forthcoming as they probably should be, likely. But Bush never actually made the exact claim that Saddam Hussein took part in 9/11, and yet as of September of 2005 polls showed that Americans believed Hussein did play a role. It just goes to show the power of suggestion by placing two things together in enough sentences: Iraq, 9/11, WMD, Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda, WMD, Iraq, 9/11. We're seeing the same thing now with Iran and nukes, Iran and "terrorists" (presumably al Qaeda in Iraq), nucular weapons, Iran and Hezbollah, nukes, Iran and attacks on American forces, nucular friggin weapons.

So, if you want me to give you specific examples for where the administration, and the three in specific I listed, have been beating the war drums, I'll be happy to accomodate. However, don't play some game where you think they actually have to phrase their words a certain way to give the meaning you are claiming isn't there. The whole language of politics is like taking manager-speak and making it even more convoluted. It's no secret that the administration is seeking confrontation with Iran, and it's been obvious that some of the administration is okay with such a confrontation possibly taking the form of military action.

The painful irony of all this is that our administration could have nipped the problem Iran faces in the bud way back in 2002, or at the latest in early 2003.

[GreNME]

And please explain why Russia is delaying completion of Iran's nuclear reactor if they are certain they don't have a nuke program...

Because it's better economically for Russia that the reactor not be completed quickly.

[Darth Rotor]

Because it's better economically for Russia that the reactor not be completed quickly.

Can you explain that please? It would seem to me that for the Russian companies involved, it would be better for the project to be completed, and then supply and servicing contracts would follow.

How does not completing the job benefit the Russians?

DR

[DaChew]

Here's why I don't think Iran has much of a nuclear bomb program - the rumors that the Israelis bombed North Korean nuclear bomb equipment in Syria. IF the Iranians had anything near completion, don't you think it more likely for Syria to get it from them rather than the NKs?

[GreNME]

Can you explain that please? It would seem to me that for the Russian companies involved, it would be better for the project to be completed, and then supply and servicing contracts would follow.

How does not completing the job benefit the Russians?

DR

It keeps an economic relationship more active and alive between Iran and Russia. On the a scale, it requires some Russian engineering to be present in Iran (even if only supervisory), which provides a small number of Russians with high-paying jobs. However, more importantly, the longer Iran is in a position where it seems to need Russian assistance the more influence Russia plans to have in an area that is mostly dominated by US influence through military occupation or alliance. Russia isn't in need of the natural resources of the region-- they are huge exporters of oil and natural gas already-- but the political capital that Russia stands to gain from relations with a country that America has spent the last 25 years avoiding direct diplomatic relations gives Russia a diplomatic advantage that the US and most of the West doesn't have.

Russia isn't looking to get richer off its dealings with Iran, it's looking for more political influence. They aren't the post-soviet beggar with hats in hand any more. Prolonging the process of building the reactor in Iran gives Russia time to establish political influence in Iran and, depending on how much you like to speculate, on surrounding nations as well.

Otherwise, Russia would have simply handed over diagrams and blueprints. Actually getting involved in the process of building the reactor isn't worth much on its own, not compared to the country's other economic strengths. This is completely a political move on their part to build credibility. The more independently influential Russia is able to seem to the rest of the world, the more viable Russia becomes as a nation to do business with on larger and larger scales, with the goal of acheiving their former role as a competing superpower on a global scale with the US. Russia spent a good portion of the 1990's getting back on its economic feet again, and now it wants to reach out and grab some political capital so that other nations rely on them, ensuring Russia's economic (and political) stability.

[Upchurch]

Can you list the people advocating an attack on Iran at this time?

There's these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_military_action_against_Iran#Support_f rom_politicans).

Honestly, though, you don't see any similarities to the immediate run up to the Iraq war? The fear-mongering, the implications of pure evil, the position that if we don't do something soon it will be too late? None of that rings a bell?

[corplinx]

There's these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_military_action_against_Iran#Support_f rom_politicans).

Honestly, though, you don't see any similarities to the immediate run up to the Iraq war? The fear-mongering, the implications of pure evil, the position that if we don't do something soon it will be too late? None of that rings a bell?

When even France is talking tough, its time to talk tough.

We want them to know that if they make the bomb, their bomb will have a very short life span. We want to put fear into these people as a deterrent because fear and loathing are what the mullahs understand.

Is this so hard to understand?

[GreNME]

When even France is talking tough, its time to talk tough.

We want them to know that if they make the bomb, their bomb will have a very short life span. We want to put fear into these people as a deterrent because fear and loathing are what the mullahs understand.

Is this so hard to understand?

I don't think it's the "understand" part that's difficult. It's the "agree with" part that is the difficult one.

I find the "even France" line funny, since Sarkozy is pretty much a hardline conservative, and even believes that there should be less separation between church and state. The whole "French are wusses" talk says more about the person regurgitating it than it does the actual stance of the French.

[corplinx]

I don't think it's the "understand" part that's difficult. It's the "agree with" part that is the difficult one.


Do you want the mullahs to have the bomb?

[GreNME]

Do you want the mullahs to have the bomb?

Do you also argue with people by asking them if they still beat their wives? Are you going to ask me if I support Osama bin Laden next?

[Upchurch]

When even France is talking tough, its time to talk tough.

We want them to know that if they make the bomb, their bomb will have a very short life span. We want to put fear into these people as a deterrent because fear and loathing are what the mullahs understand.

Is this so hard to understand?
It really depends on who this "we" is that you are speaking of. If you're talking about the world community, sounds great. If you're talking about another almost-unilateral US "You're either with us or for the terrorists" type initiative, there is no way in hades we're going to be able to pull another one of those off.

But back to the topic, are you now agreeing that US officials are talking along these lines or are you still questioning it?

[Segnosaur]

[URL]
According to Mohamed El Baradei, there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Yes, it is likely true that the IAEA has no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

However, for all the faith and trust the anti-war movement has placed in organizations like the IAEA, it should be noted that their track record is really not very good. Yes, they manged to get things right when they claimed that Saddam had no WMD prior to the recent invasion, but compare that to Libya (where they were taken by suprise about their activities when Libya revealed its programs), North Korea, or even Iraq prior to the first gulf war.

Seems like the IAEA is more often wrong than right.

Now, this does necessarily mean that the IAEA is a 'bad' organization. However, its abilities are severely limited by the amount of cooperation given by various countries. A claim that IAEA that they have 'no proof' does not mean that there is no weapons program; such claims must be weighed against other factors (in this case, the fact that Iran has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the IAEA.)

Of course, all this doesn't necessarily mean that military action is justifed. The best way to handle a hidden nuclear weapons program is a different issue.

[Upchurch]

Do you want the mullahs to have the bomb?

No, no, no, no, no. We cannot get trapped into that kind of thinking again. It's this kind of fear-mongering that got us blundering into Iraq.

Just stop.

[GreNME]

Yes, it is likely true that the IAEA has no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

No, the United States has no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That should be constantly made clear.


However, for all the faith and trust the anti-war movement has placed in organizations like the IAEA, it should be noted that their track record is really not very good.

Better that the Bush administration's record so far.


Yes, they manged to get things right when they claimed that Saddam had no WMD prior to the recent invasion, but compare that to Libya (where they were taken by suprise about their activities when Libya revealed its programs), North Korea, or even Iraq prior to the first gulf war.

Libya: you mean when they admitted their nuclear program-- consisting almost completely of 30-year-old hardware they had kept in storage-- after a year of scrutiny by the IAEA during the run-up to Iraq? Methinks you twist the story just a bit there to suit your rhetoric.

North Korea: You mean where North Korea kicked out the IAEA and said they were moving forward with a program? You know, at the same time Bush was beating his war drum for Iraq?

First Gulf War: you're referring to the nuclear program that the IAEA suspected of being in place, right?

Seems like the IAEA is more often wrong than right.

Sure, when you're making up your own interpretation of history, anything seems possible.


Now, this does necessarily mean that the IAEA is a 'bad' organization. However, its abilities are severely limited by the amount of cooperation given by various countries. A claim that IAEA that they have 'no proof' does not mean that there is no weapons program; such claims must be weighed against other factors (in this case, the fact that Iran has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the IAEA.)

Wait, I've heard this one before... yeah, it was about December of 2002 or so. Except there wasn't an "N" at the and of the nation's name.


Of course, all this doesn't necessarily mean that military action is justifed. The best way to handle a hidden nuclear weapons program is a different issue.

Obviously, if prior precedent dictates the actions of this administration, the best way to "handle" the situation is to attack a nation on the other side of the continent than the one actually engaged in an active nuclear program.

[Segnosaur]

No, the United States has no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That should be constantly made clear.

The opening post referred to statements by ElBaradei where he stated "...he had no evidence...". So, it is the statements (and knowledge) of the IAEA that are at issue here. (Of course, he did hedge his bets by stating "...we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks. "


Better that the Bush administration's record so far.

Well, lets see... is a 0-1 record (Bush's incorrect claim about Iraq) better or worse than a 1-3 record (IAEA's records in Libya, pre-gulf war Iraq, and Korea)?


Libya: you mean when they admitted their nuclear program-- consisting almost completely of 30-year-old hardware they had kept in storage-- after a year of scrutiny by the IAEA during the run-up to Iraq? Methinks you twist the story just a bit there to suit your rhetoric.

No, I was referring to the Libya that had centrifuge parts (not enough to produce a bomb but were run for years without knowledge by the IAEA), and which had imported plenty of nuclear materials which it had previously not declared.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/libya/nuclear.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/iaea0204.pdf (e.g. section 34)

The fact is, while Libya did not have the ability to build a bomb, they were still more advanced than the IAEA (or even the U.S.) realized.

North Korea: You mean where North Korea kicked out the IAEA and said they were moving forward with a program? You know, at the same time Bush was beating his war drum for Iraq?

Actually, I'm referring to the North Korea whom, prior to when they kicked out IAEA inspectors, were still engaging in weapons development. (Do you really think North Korea went from nothing to actually testing a nuke in only a few years?)

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/cia111902.html

First Gulf War: you're referring to the nuclear program that the IAEA suspected of being in place, right?

Wait a sec... now you're saying just 'suspecting' is equivalent of 'proof'?


Obviously, if prior precedent dictates the actions of this administration, the best way to "handle" the situation is to attack a nation on the other side of the continent than the one actually engaged in an active nuclear program.

Thus you are under the mistaken assumption that the suspected presence of nuclear weapons is the sole determinar of whether military action should be taken.

[corplinx]

No, no, no, no, no. We cannot get trapped into that kind of thinking again. It's this kind of fear-mongering that got us blundering into Iraq.

Just stop.

No no no no. This is the sort of closed minded thinking that makes threads retarded.

Its a legitimate question because it is a possible outcome. Its the elephant in the room.

Let me backtrack and give you the context here:

First Me:
We want them to know that if they make the bomb, their bomb will have a very short life span. We want to put fear into these people as a deterrent because fear and loathing are what the mullahs understand.

Is this so hard to understand?

Okay, now him:
I don't think it's the "understand" part that's difficult. It's the "agree with" part that is the difficult one.

And now me asking an honest question:
Do you want the mullahs to have the bomb?

Now, I figured I would get a knee-jerk "do you still beat your wife" flippant response. However, I posed the question anyway since it is a legitimate one.
Some of us want the world using nuclear power but we want IAEA inspectors and in dangerous countries like Iran we want to supply the enriched uranium. I asked a very legitimate question of the person to clarify their stance on the issue. This person has a non-intervention stance. I am posing "the tough question". Would you allow the mullahs to get the bomb if you could prevent it?

Now, the mullahs are nowhere near having a bomb currently. However, if the world lets Iran proceed with unmonitored nuclear activities that could be the end result. Someone in the world has to be the bad cop while other countries play the good cop offering Iran no problems if they just open up. If Iran thinks there won't be any serious consequences, does anyone here think they won't proceed with a nuclear weapon program?

[GreNME]

The opening post referred to statements by ElBaradei where he stated "...he had no evidence...". So, it is the statements (and knowledge) of the IAEA that are at issue here. (Of course, he did hedge his bets by stating "...we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks. "

The opening post is framing it in reference to US claims that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Ignoring that is one of the faults in your approach. The US has even less proof of a program than the IAEA, and since the IAEA has none that doesn't look promising for the war hawks.


Well, lets see... is a 0-1 record (Bush's incorrect claim about Iraq) better or worse than a 1-3 record (IAEA's records in Libya, pre-gulf war Iraq, and Korea)?

Last I checked, North Korea was able to obtain a nuclear weapon under the watchful eye of George 'Dubya' Bush. In the run-up to the Iraq war, El Presidente was told that North Korea was further along in their weapons program than Iraq was, and even showed proof (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/inspectorsrecall20030103.html) to the world that the DPRK had blatantly disregarded the treaty they signed nearly a decade earlier.

But that's beside the point. You're trying to divert blame by claiming the IAEA should have known, and yet when the IAEA is allowed to perform investigations it turns out their inspections are based in fact. They weren't actively inspecting Libya back when it was hiding its actual imports, it was checking the reported materials. The IAEA was the one to confirm Iraq's weapons program in 1991. They have been actively involved in keeping track of materials, and when they do investigate their data turns out to hold true.

The same can't be said for the Bush administration so far.


No, I was referring to the Libya that had centrifuge parts (not enough to produce a bomb but were run for years without knowledge by the IAEA), and which had imported plenty of nuclear materials which it had previously not declared.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/libya/nuclear.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/iaea0204.pdf (e.g. section 34)

I know what you're talking about, and it's exactly what I said. They didn't have a program in place that was actually capable of making a bomb, they were trying to import materials to make extra fissible material to eventually build into a bomb (of Chinese design). Guess who has the data on which parts are where-- yep, the IAEA, not the US. Why? Because the IAEA decided to inspect the country, something the US couldn't do and would be incapable of doing.

The fact is, while Libya did not have the ability to build a bomb, they were still more advanced than the IAEA (or even the U.S.) realized.

But not able to make a bomb. This should be made clear, because half of their bomb-making hardware was in storage. Only the extra centrifuges were in use, enriching more uranium than they were reporting to the IAEA. You're overblowing the description of what really happened to suit your rhetoric.

Actually, I'm referring to the North Korea whom, prior to when they kicked out IAEA inspectors, were still engaging in weapons development. (Do you really think North Korea went from nothing to actually testing a nuke in only a few years?)

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/cia111902.html

You're talking BS now. The IAEA has consistently accused North Korea of being engaged in a clandestine program designed to make uranium for nuclear missiles since before North Korea signed the treaty with the US in the 1990's, and has never stopped even after inspectors were asked to get out or were stonewalled prior.

Wait a sec... now you're saying just 'suspecting' is equivalent of 'proof'?

The IAEA were the ones to present the chemical proof of enrichment programs in the 1990's. The IAEA were the ones who presented the broken seals as proof since 2002. The US has blustered about how Saddam was just two years away from a missile that could strike Europe with a "nucular" payload.


Thus you are under the mistaken assumption that the suspected presence of nuclear weapons is the sole determinar of whether military action should be taken.

Nice attempt to argue against something I didn't say. However, the problem is that trying to make arguments to not trust the IAEA because Dubya may have had less time to be a foul-up-- and yet still already falsely attacked one country and let another country get a nuke, not to mention having the top enemy terrorist organization more than double in size since he began his war on a feeling-- is faulted by the fact that a good deal of the US intelligence on the nuclear state of many nations comes from the IAEA itself, both through reports from the organization and with joint investigations.

[GreNME]

Now, I figured I would get a knee-jerk "do you still beat your wife" flippant response. However, I posed the question anyway since it is a legitimate one.

No, it's really not. The situation is not a one-or-the-other type of issue.

[corplinx]

No, it's really not. The situation is not a one-or-the-other type of issue.

And you are dodging answering with a fake accusation of making this either/or. This doesn't have to be a black/white matter, I am talking about a _likely_ ouctome. I am not asking you about unlikely hypotheticals.

1. Iran is undergoing a military buildup and trying to innovate new munitions/bombs.
2. Iran is a buyer of North Korean technology.
3. Iran doesn't want inspections of its uranium enrichment program.

This is reality. Why are refusing to discuss the possibility of Iran becoming the next North Korea when its a highly likely scenario?

[Upchurch]

No no no no. This is the sort of closed minded thinking that makes threads retarded.

Its a legitimate question because it is a possible outcome. Its the elephant in the room.
It is not a legitimate question because no one short of the mullahs wants the mullahs to have nuclear weapons. Your question is not suggesting it is a possible outcome but rather a direct outcome.

It is a "do you still beat your wife" type of question and it has proven itself faulty in the past. Intentionally or not, you are promoting fear over reason.


I am posing "the tough question". Would you allow the mullahs to get the bomb if you could prevent it?
Let me pose a tougher question to you: Would you plunge another nation's populous into chaos, anarchy, and civil war in order for some of our nation's populous don't have to worry so much?

Do the good of the few outweigh the good of the many?


Now, the mullahs are nowhere near having a bomb currently. However, if the world lets Iran proceed with unmonitored nuclear activities that could be the end result.
"if" is a poor excuse for war, as has been amply shown in Iraq.


Someone in the world has to be the bad cop
Says who? I think that's baloney.


If Iran thinks there won't be any serious consequences, does anyone here think they won't proceed with a nuclear weapon program?
Do you think we are in any position to provide "serious consequences" at this moment other than a nuclear response? Since we are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are essentially suggesting that Cold War II is our only option and that simply isn't the case.

[GreNME]

And you are dodging answering with a fake accusation of making this either/or. This doesn't have to be a black/white matter, I am talking about a _likely_ ouctome.

With more than one resolution. You are responding to my pointing out that the issue isn't one way or the other by attacking an argument I never made.


I am not asking you about unlikely hypotheticals.

And I am saying it's not an "attack Iran" or "Iran gets nukes" situation.


1. Iran is undergoing a military buildup and trying to innovate new munitions/bombs.

It also has the largest country in the world threatening attack, and has been labelled part of the "Axis of Evil" even after offering twice to improve relations with that country (the US), one time even offering to meet almost all requests by that country to establish relations. The government feels understandably threatened, even if their actions are not justifiable in the long run.


2. Iran is a buyer of North Korean technology.

And Iran was a supplier to North Korea with technology to develop their bomb. However, currently there is no proof of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, so rattling swords is premature.


3. Iran doesn't want inspections of its uranium enrichment program.

But it's forced to allow them. Those are the terms for allowing a nuclear power program.


This is reality. Why are refusing to discuss the possibility of Iran becoming the next North Korea when its a highly likely scenario?

"People" are refusing no such thing. What "people" are refusing to accept is that military action is the proper course.

[WildCat]

Took me all of two seconds googling (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/putin.iran/).




Who knows? The Russians, in case you haven't noticed, are bat-dren crazy and more than a little paranoid.
Actions speak louder than words, and the Russians actions show they are very suspicious of the Iranians intent. Putin's talk is just to give the US fits.

[GreNME]

Actions speak louder than words, and the Russians actions show they are very suspicious of the Iranians intent. Putin's talk is just to give the US fits.

So, you can see into Putin's soul like Our Fearless Leader does?

What are my lucky lotto numbers?

[WildCat]

Did you bother to read past what you quoted?
Yes I did, perhaps you didn't understand the question? I asked who is claiming military action is needed now, and you said Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Sure you qualified it, but that did not address the question at all.

[WildCat]

So, you can see into Putin's soul like Our Fearless Leader does?
No, I see his actions. And the action he is taking is putting off indefinitely the completion of Iran's reactor, and refusing to supply fuel.

[Cleon]

Actions speak louder than words, and the Russians actions show they are very suspicious of the Iranians intent. Putin's talk is just to give the US fits.

You're interpreting this in such a way that's convenient to your preconceived notions, nothing more.

[GreNME]

No, I see his actions. And the action he is taking is putting off indefinitely the completion of Iran's reactor, and refusing to supply fuel.

Right... because working to increase influence for Russia in the Mid-East just doesn't seem as supportive of your predetermined assumptions to work.

eta: beaten by Cleon