FREE TAPATALK APP

webfusion · 17th April 2005, 07:50 PM

http://www.isis-online.org/images/ir...anzfigure1.jpg

This is a photo (link) to the Iranian nuclear enrichment site at Natanz. Much has been said about Israel destroying it with an IAF F-16 air raid using bunker-busters.

Last week, the US President sat down with Arik Sharon and the two discussed how best to deal with the Iranians on this issue. There is a ton of press available on the subject, I will not bore you here with the various reports.

Question: If Israel just went ahead and took action (as it did against Iraq's nuke plant before it was completed), would Israel be justified? Does Israel have to wait for all diplomatic channels to be exhausted, or can she go ahead already and send the pilots on this mission to Natanz?

Kerberos · 17th April 2005, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by webfusion
http://www.isis-online.org/images/ir...anzfigure1.jpg

This is a photo (link) to the Iranian nuclear enrichment site at Natanz. Much has been said about Israel destroying it with an IAF F-16 air raid using bunker-busters.

Last week, the US President sat down with Arik Sharon and the two discussed how best to deal with the Iranians on this issue. There is a ton of press available on the subject, I will not bore you here with the various reports.

Question: If Israel just went ahead and took action (as it did against Iraq's nuke plant before it was completed), would Israel be justified? Does Israel have to wait for all diplomatic channels to be exhausted, or can she go ahead already and send the pilots on this mission to Natanz?

I've said earlier I thought it would be OK, I still pretty much stand by that though of course it depends somewhat on whether there is any risk in delay, if you can bomb it just as well in a month or half a year as now then I see no reason not to exhaust all diplomatic options first.

ETA: I've heard BTW that air strikes wouldn't be efficient because the Iranians had spread out their facilities or something like that; obviously my support for air strikes is contingent on them having a reasonable chance of success.

a_unique_person · 17th April 2005, 11:18 PM

I don't believe the evidence.

TragicMonkey · 17th April 2005, 11:28 PM

I'm no nuculeon scientist, but wouldn't dropping powerful explosives near something called "nuclear" be a bit dangerous? I mean, instead of destroying the complex, could this result in Giant Cloud of Radioactive Cancer Dust? Israel isn't that far away from Iran.

webfusion · 18th April 2005, 09:07 AM

The entire complex is still under construction, and there is not yet any radioactive material at the site. Iran is anxious to receive it in the next short while (from Russia) and that is why Israel is anxious to level this facility now, and not wait for rounds of interminable negotiations and wimpy resolutions from the UN.

NOTE: This complex is a different one than the $1-billion nuclear powered reactor facility being constucted at Bushehr.

a_u_p, what evidence don't you believe? That Iran built this site at Natanz? Perhaps the photo is fake evidence? Or do you just not believe that Iran intends to enrich uranium to produce nuclear-bomb-grade material? Do you doubt that that Iran has signed contracts with Russia to obtain the uranium? Maybe you are simply skeptical that Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons (and already has North-Korean-supplied DONG missiles to deliver them)?

http://www.cdi.org/russia/344-24.cfm

"The head of Russiaâ€™s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), Alexander Rumyantsev, said Monday that the contract for nuclear fuel deliveries signed between Russia and Iran over the weekend (Feb26th) was part of Russiaâ€™s responsibilities under international agreements."

"He also countered media reports that the Iranians had demanded the shipments be made immediately, and not closer to the power plantâ€™s start-up date. The fuel, Rumyantsev said, would not be shipped until the completion of the power plant's construction, sometime in 2006, and that an exact date for the transfer could not be provided, in accordance with international practice designed to help insure the security of nuclear materials."

CBL4 · 18th April 2005, 10:47 AM

Clearly the world would be better off without an Iranian nuclear weapon. Given the numerous lies by Iran plus their oil providing energy, it would be foolish to assume that Iran is building this for anything other than weapons.

In a better world, the UN would act or Russia would not supply uranium. These are not going to happen. The free world's choices are to act or let Iran get nuclear capability. Neither Japan or the EU will act. That means the US and Israel get to decide whether or not to allow Iran weapons.

I would prefer the US to have the guts and honesty to bomb it. My guess is that Israel will do the bombing with a wink from the US.

CBL

a_unique_person · 18th April 2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by webfusion
The entire complex is still under construction, and there is not yet any radioactive material at the site. Iran is anxious to receive it in the next short while (from Russia) and that is why Israel is anxious to level this facility now, and not wait for rounds of interminable negotiations and wimpy resolutions from the UN.

NOTE: This complex is a different one than the $1-billion nuclear powered reactor facility being constucted at Bushehr.

a_u_p, what evidence don't you believe? That Iran built this site at Natanz? Perhaps the photo is fake evidence? Or do you just not believe that Iran intends to enrich uranium to produce nuclear-bomb-grade material? Do you doubt that that Iran has signed contracts with Russia to obtain the uranium? Maybe you are simply skeptical that Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons (and already has North-Korean-supplied DONG missiles to deliver them)?

http://www.cdi.org/russia/344-24.cfm

"The head of Russiaâ€™s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), Alexander Rumyantsev, said Monday that the contract for nuclear fuel deliveries signed between Russia and Iran over the weekend (Feb26th) was part of Russiaâ€™s responsibilities under international agreements."

"He also countered media reports that the Iranians had demanded the shipments be made immediately, and not closer to the power plantâ€™s start-up date. The fuel, Rumyantsev said, would not be shipped until the completion of the power plant's construction, sometime in 2006, and that an exact date for the transfer could not be provided, in accordance with international practice designed to help insure the security of nuclear materials."

I am against nuclear proliferation, and want to see the process of internationally backed inspections going ahead to ensure that.

My doubts are because the IAEA says they are not going to be building facilities to produce nukes. That is what they said before the Iraq invasion, too, and they were right.

webfusion · 18th April 2005, 05:34 PM

By destroying Natanz, the Israelis will guarantee the end of Iranian aspirations towards nuclear weapons for a very long time. I am not so sure that "promises" to the IAEA or the UN by the Iranian mullahs is a guarantee of anything.

Better safe than sorry. 'First strike' is Israel's modus operandi. Once that site becomes operational, it would be impossible to bomb it without a risk of releasing clouds of radiation. (see Osirak).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...anxF_img23.jpg

Kerberos · 19th April 2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by webfusion
By destroying Natanz, the Israelis will guarantee the end of Iranian aspirations towards nuclear weapons for a very long time. I am not so sure that "promises" to the IAEA or the UN by the Iranian mullahs is a guarantee of anything.

Better safe than sorry. 'First strike' is Israel's modus operandi. Once that site becomes operational, it would be impossible to bomb it without a risk of releasing clouds of radiation. (see Osirak).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...anxF_img23.jpg

Then you can tell Sharon he's got my blessing, I'm sure it means the world to him.

NoZed Avenger · 19th April 2005, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
IMy doubts are because the IAEA says they are not going to be building facilities to produce nukes. That is what they said before the Iraq invasion, too, and they were right.

And in Lybia and N. Korea? How's their overall batting average?

BPSCG · 19th April 2005, 09:18 AM

But Iran's not an imminent threat!

punchdrunk · 19th April 2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
But Iran's not an imminent threat!

Exactly, and yet reasonable people both left and right are here discussing the necessity of striking first before they become one. You know, what should have happened with the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

BPSCG · 19th April 2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
Exactly, and yet reasonable people both left and right are here discussing the necessity of striking first before they become one. You know, what should have happened with the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

You mean there was no discussion before we invaded Iraq? Who knew?

Anyway, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. I can see clearly now. We should do nothing about Iran until we know they have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them with long-range missiles or bombers and they are threatening to blow up Kansas City tomorrow night.

If they just plan to blow up Tel Aviv, that's not our lookout.

punchdrunk · 19th April 2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
You mean there was no discussion before we invaded Iraq? Who knew?

There was no discussion about the need for a pre-emtive strike against them when they weren't considered an imminent threat. And they were only considered an imminent threat after Bush got the war plan from Wolfowitz and decided to go for it. Of course I guess it's too much to ask of our leaders to give us the real reasons for war (valid or not); better they act first and apologize later.

Quote:

Anyway, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. I can see clearly now. We should do nothing about Iran until we know they have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them with long-range missiles or bombers and they are threatening to blow up Kansas City tomorrow night.

If they just plan to blow up Tel Aviv, that's not our lookout.

Point taken and you've made it plenty of times. Too bad my time machine is on the fritz, we could have this discussion vis-a-vis Iraq before the start of the war, when it should have taken place.

BPSCG · 19th April 2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
Point taken and you've made it plenty of times. Too bad my time machine is on the fritz, we could have this discussion vis-a-vis Iraq before the start of the war, when it should have taken place.

Well, let's not forget the past and be condemned to repeat it.

Do you think Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons?

If so, what should we do about it?

Psi Baba · 19th April 2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
You mean there was no discussion before we invaded Iraq? Who knew?

Anyway, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. I can see clearly now. We should do nothing about Iran until we know they have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them with long-range missiles or bombers and they are threatening to blow up Kansas City tomorrow night.

If they just plan to blow up Tel Aviv, that's not our lookout.

I must have missed the part where all we did was fly over Iraq, bomb their WMD facilities and fly home. Surely we could have done that, right?

Grammatron · 19th April 2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psi Baba
I must have missed the part where all we did was fly over Iraq, bomb their WMD facilities and fly home. Surely we could have done that, right?

We did, in the late 90's.

punchdrunk · 19th April 2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Well, let's not forget the past and be condemned to repeat it.

Do you think Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons?

If so, what should we do about it?

Though I'm somewhat unsure about this site (not very though), yes, I do think they as basic policy are trying to build nuclear weapons. Moreover, I distrust any undemocratic country to effectively police themselves in their use. As the world grows smaller and the bombs get bigger and more plentiful, no question our foreign policy has to change to reflect this fact. Isolationism is of course out of the question. We see the substandard results of tolerating these dictatorships, from the UN to multilateralism and unilateralism negotiations. I ask, like you ask, what are our other options? Continue to dance in place until the next 9/11?

Ultimately our goal should be to spread democracy to Iran. We can blow up their site now, we could even invade them if necessary, but we can't occupy every non-democratic country with a chip on their shoulder against us. There has to be other ways to spread democracy. I'm willing to send some of my tax dollars to Sharansky et al for any ideas he/they may have.

But, in the meantime, if we have to take action against Iran, I think I am for it. I would hope though that it is done right, with the proper reasoning clearly outlined. Please, intelligence gatherers, do a better job, be more critical, and share your information. Please, senior level officials, don't just pass just along the information that you think your superiors want to hear. Please Mr. Bush, make Sharasnky's case for democracy our case. Give it to the American people and I truly believe they will agree. I know I (a commie liberal bastard) have.

BPSCG · 19th April 2005, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rhoadp
Though I'm somewhat unsure about this site (not very though), yes, I do think they as basic policy are trying to build nuclear weapons. Moreover, I distrust any undemocratic country to effectively police themselves in their use. As the world grows smaller and the bombs get bigger and more plentiful, no question our foreign policy has to change to reflect this fact. Isolationism is of course out of the question. We see the substandard results of tolerating these dictatorships, from the UN to multilateralism and unilateralism negotiations. I ask, like you ask, what are our other options? Continue to dance in place until the next 9/11?

Well, I was going to commend you to Sharansky, but it appears you've gotten there already.

I frankly think Sharansky's approach would be very effective against Iran. They don't totally crush dissent there, as in, say Iraq or North Korea, so the wedge is in the crack (no jokes about atomic wedgies, please...), and they should be susceptible to pressure to liberalize.

The problem would be, as always, getting the rest of the world to sign on. How do you get the French and the Germans and the Chinese to agree to treat Iran like a pariah if they don't allow personal freedoms? The Chinese government has no use for personal freedom themselves; how do you get them, of all people, to put the screws to Iran?

Quote:

We can blow up their site now, we could even invade them if necessary, but we can't occupy every non-democratic country with a chip on their shoulder against us.

Well, Ann Coulter suggests we nuke NK, just as an example. That would certainly get everyone's attention...

punchdrunk · 19th April 2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
The problem would be, as always, getting the rest of the world to sign on. How do you get the French and the Germans and the Chinese to agree to treat Iran like a pariah if they don't allow personal freedoms? The Chinese government has no use for personal freedom themselves; how do you get them, of all people, to put the screws to Iran?

When Reagan put the screws to the Soviet Union, did we have multi-national support? If not, how exactly did his policies affect the USSR, and which ones were most effective? Are there any ideas learned from that era that we can apply now? This is sadly where I have to cry "dunce" because I just don't know.

a_unique_person · 19th April 2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
And in Lybia and N. Korea? How's their overall batting average?

North Korea is a seperate issue. There is no doubt that it is a cause for concern, but an entirely different strategy is being taken to deal with that country.

Libya has been dealt with in a non violent manner, and is now on board as a citizen of the 'free world'. When Ghadaffi's son was out here recently, the conservative pollies were treating him like royalty, they were so keen to get in on the ground floor with trade deals.

NoZed Avenger · 19th April 2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
North Korea is a seperate issue. There is no doubt that it is a cause for concern, but an entirely different strategy is being taken to deal with that country.

Libya has been dealt with in a non violent manner, and is now on board as a citizen of the 'free world'. When Ghadaffi's son was out here recently, the conservative pollies were treating him like royalty, they were so keen to get in on the ground floor with trade deals.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the IAEA and its accuracy.

Focus, please:

Quote:

Originally posted by AUP
IMy doubts are because the IAEA says they are not going to be building facilities to produce nukes. That is what they said before the Iraq invasion, too, and they were right.

And they were wrong on N Korea. Wrong on Lybia. And if you recall, they were even wrong with Iraq itself before the first Gulf War, when they were embarassed to find an active nuclear program that they had assured everyone didn't exist.

That's 1 for 4 in the past fifteen years or so.

webfusion · 19th April 2005, 09:29 PM

I am really impressed with the discourse here on 'my' thread.
Thanks all. It is really going along pretty well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Psi Baba
I must have missed the part where all we did was fly over Iraq, bomb their WMD facilities and fly home. Surely we could have done that, right?

Grammatron replied -- "we did, in the late 90's "

That refers to the bombing campaign initiated by President Clinton when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but we also must recall that Israel flew her F16's to Osirak/Tammuz reactor and bombed it back in 1981 (taking it out before it was made active with nuclear fuel rods).

The current situation is similar, and perhaps Arik Sharon can use a boost at home by launching this far-flung adventure? His Gaza disengagement isn't going forward until this Fall, and that leaves him with an open calendar for the Summer. I say, July 20th. It was a date that already had been pencilled-in for some actions, and now the IDF is left with a 'free' day on their schedule.

Grammatron · 19th April 2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by webfusion
I am really impressed with the discourse here on 'my' thread.
Thanks all. It is really going along pretty well.

Grammatron replied -- "we did, in the late 90's "

That refers to the bombing campaign initiated by President Clinton when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but we also must recall that Israel flew her F16's to Osirak/Tammuz reactor and bombed it back in 1981 (taking it out before it was made active with nuclear fuel rods).

The current situation is similar, and perhaps Arik Sharon can use a boost at home by launching this far-flung adventure? His Gaza disengagement isn't going forward until this Fall, and that leaves him with an open calendar for the Summer. I say, July 20th. It was a date that already had been pencilled-in for some actions, and now the IDF is left with a 'free' day on their schedule.

And what if Iran retaliates?

webfusion · 20th April 2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

what if iran retaliates?

It seems that such an eventuality has been considered ---

http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpa...docid=39497.EN

Yesterday (monday, April 18th, 2005), the joint IDF and US Army anti-missile defense exercise which took place over the last few weeks has ended. The exercise had been planned during the last two years and was part of a routine series of exercises meant to examine the coordinated operation of the defense systems of both nations.

17th April 2005, 07:50 PM	#1
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Israeli F-16's: Target Natanz. http://www.isis-online.org/images/ir...anzfigure1.jpg This is a photo (link) to the Iranian nuclear enrichment site at Natanz. Much has been said about Israel destroying it with an IAF F-16 air raid using bunker-busters. Last week, the US President sat down with Arik Sharon and the two discussed how best to deal with the Iranians on this issue. There is a ton of press available on the subject, I will not bore you here with the various reports. Question: If Israel just went ahead and took action (as it did against Iraq's nuke plant before it was completed), would Israel be justified? Does Israel have to wait for all diplomatic channels to be exhausted, or can she go ahead already and send the pilots on this mission to Natanz?

17th April 2005, 09:58 PM	#2
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Re: Israeli F-16's: Target Natanz. Quote: Originally posted by webfusion http://www.isis-online.org/images/ir...anzfigure1.jpg This is a photo (link) to the Iranian nuclear enrichment site at Natanz. Much has been said about Israel destroying it with an IAF F-16 air raid using bunker-busters. Last week, the US President sat down with Arik Sharon and the two discussed how best to deal with the Iranians on this issue. There is a ton of press available on the subject, I will not bore you here with the various reports. Question: If Israel just went ahead and took action (as it did against Iraq's nuke plant before it was completed), would Israel be justified? Does Israel have to wait for all diplomatic channels to be exhausted, or can she go ahead already and send the pilots on this mission to Natanz? I've said earlier I thought it would be OK, I still pretty much stand by that though of course it depends somewhat on whether there is any risk in delay, if you can bomb it just as well in a month or half a year as now then I see no reason not to exhaust all diplomatic options first. ETA: I've heard BTW that air strikes wouldn't be efficient because the Iranians had spread out their facilities or something like that; obviously my support for air strikes is contingent on them having a reasonable chance of success.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

17th April 2005, 11:18 PM	#3
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	I don't believe the evidence.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

17th April 2005, 11:28 PM	#4
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,290	I'm no nuculeon scientist, but wouldn't dropping powerful explosives near something called "nuclear" be a bit dangerous? I mean, instead of destroying the complex, could this result in Giant Cloud of Radioactive Cancer Dust? Israel isn't that far away from Iran.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

18th April 2005, 10:47 AM	#6
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	Clearly the world would be better off without an Iranian nuclear weapon. Given the numerous lies by Iran plus their oil providing energy, it would be foolish to assume that Iran is building this for anything other than weapons. In a better world, the UN would act or Russia would not supply uranium. These are not going to happen. The free world's choices are to act or let Iran get nuclear capability. Neither Japan or the EU will act. That means the US and Israel get to decide whether or not to allow Iran weapons. I would prefer the US to have the guts and honesty to bomb it. My guess is that Israel will do the bombing with a wink from the US. CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

18th April 2005, 09:07 AM	#5
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	The entire complex is still under construction, and there is not yet any radioactive material at the site. Iran is anxious to receive it in the next short while (from Russia) and that is why Israel is anxious to level this facility now, and not wait for rounds of interminable negotiations and wimpy resolutions from the UN. NOTE: This complex is a different one than the $1-billion nuclear powered reactor facility being constucted at Bushehr. a_u_p, what evidence don't you believe? That Iran built this site at Natanz? Perhaps the photo is fake evidence? Or do you just not believe that Iran intends to enrich uranium to produce nuclear-bomb-grade material? Do you doubt that that Iran has signed contracts with Russia to obtain the uranium? Maybe you are simply skeptical that Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons (and already has North-Korean-supplied DONG missiles to deliver them)? http://www.cdi.org/russia/344-24.cfm "The head of Russiaâ€™s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), Alexander Rumyantsev, said Monday that the contract for nuclear fuel deliveries signed between Russia and Iran over the weekend (Feb26th) was part of Russiaâ€™s responsibilities under international agreements." "He also countered media reports that the Iranians had demanded the shipments be made immediately, and not closer to the power plantâ€™s start-up date. The fuel, Rumyantsev said, would not be shipped until the completion of the power plant's construction, sometime in 2006, and that an exact date for the transfer could not be provided, in accordance with international practice designed to help insure the security of nuclear materials."

18th April 2005, 04:59 PM	#7
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Quote: Originally posted by webfusion The entire complex is still under construction, and there is not yet any radioactive material at the site. Iran is anxious to receive it in the next short while (from Russia) and that is why Israel is anxious to level this facility now, and not wait for rounds of interminable negotiations and wimpy resolutions from the UN. NOTE: This complex is a different one than the $1-billion nuclear powered reactor facility being constucted at Bushehr. a_u_p, what evidence don't you believe? That Iran built this site at Natanz? Perhaps the photo is fake evidence? Or do you just not believe that Iran intends to enrich uranium to produce nuclear-bomb-grade material? Do you doubt that that Iran has signed contracts with Russia to obtain the uranium? Maybe you are simply skeptical that Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons (and already has North-Korean-supplied DONG missiles to deliver them)? http://www.cdi.org/russia/344-24.cfm "The head of Russiaâ€™s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), Alexander Rumyantsev, said Monday that the contract for nuclear fuel deliveries signed between Russia and Iran over the weekend (Feb26th) was part of Russiaâ€™s responsibilities under international agreements." "He also countered media reports that the Iranians had demanded the shipments be made immediately, and not closer to the power plantâ€™s start-up date. The fuel, Rumyantsev said, would not be shipped until the completion of the power plant's construction, sometime in 2006, and that an exact date for the transfer could not be provided, in accordance with international practice designed to help insure the security of nuclear materials." I am against nuclear proliferation, and want to see the process of internationally backed inspections going ahead to ensure that. My doubts are because the IAEA says they are not going to be building facilities to produce nukes. That is what they said before the Iraq invasion, too, and they were right.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

18th April 2005, 05:34 PM	#8
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	no Natanz, no nukes By destroying Natanz, the Israelis will guarantee the end of Iranian aspirations towards nuclear weapons for a very long time. I am not so sure that "promises" to the IAEA or the UN by the Iranian mullahs is a guarantee of anything. Better safe than sorry. 'First strike' is Israel's modus operandi. Once that site becomes operational, it would be impossible to bomb it without a risk of releasing clouds of radiation. (see Osirak). http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...anxF_img23.jpg

19th April 2005, 07:29 AM	#9
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Re: no Natanz, no nukes Quote: Originally posted by webfusion By destroying Natanz, the Israelis will guarantee the end of Iranian aspirations towards nuclear weapons for a very long time. I am not so sure that "promises" to the IAEA or the UN by the Iranian mullahs is a guarantee of anything. Better safe than sorry. 'First strike' is Israel's modus operandi. Once that site becomes operational, it would be impossible to bomb it without a risk of releasing clouds of radiation. (see Osirak). http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...anxF_img23.jpg Then you can tell Sharon he's got my blessing, I'm sure it means the world to him.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

19th April 2005, 07:50 AM	#10
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person IMy doubts are because the IAEA says they are not going to be building facilities to produce nukes. That is what they said before the Iraq invasion, too, and they were right. And in Lybia and N. Korea? How's their overall batting average?
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

19th April 2005, 09:18 AM	#11
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	But Iran's not an imminent threat!
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th April 2005, 10:15 AM	#12
punchdrunk Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,003	Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG But Iran's not an imminent threat! Exactly, and yet reasonable people both left and right are here discussing the necessity of striking first before they become one. You know, what should have happened with the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
	__________________ Freedom is self-responsibility; nothing less, nothing more. Finally, proof!: "Republicans = evil fundie criminal warmonger vampires" - (BPSCG, 5/11/06)

19th April 2005, 10:35 AM	#13
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by rhoadp Exactly, and yet reasonable people both left and right are here discussing the necessity of striking first before they become one. You know, what should have happened with the pre-emptive strike against Iraq. You mean there was no discussion before we invaded Iraq? Who knew? Anyway, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. I can see clearly now. We should do nothing about Iran until we know they have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them with long-range missiles or bombers and they are threatening to blow up Kansas City tomorrow night. If they just plan to blow up Tel Aviv, that's not our lookout.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th April 2005, 10:49 AM	#14
punchdrunk Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,003	Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG You mean there was no discussion before we invaded Iraq? Who knew? There was no discussion about the need for a pre-emtive strike against them when they weren't considered an imminent threat. And they were only considered an imminent threat after Bush got the war plan from Wolfowitz and decided to go for it. Of course I guess it's too much to ask of our leaders to give us the real reasons for war (valid or not); better they act first and apologize later. Quote: Anyway, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. I can see clearly now. We should do nothing about Iran until we know they have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them with long-range missiles or bombers and they are threatening to blow up Kansas City tomorrow night. If they just plan to blow up Tel Aviv, that's not our lookout. Point taken and you've made it plenty of times. Too bad my time machine is on the fritz, we could have this discussion vis-a-vis Iraq before the start of the war, when it should have taken place.
	__________________ Freedom is self-responsibility; nothing less, nothing more. Finally, proof!: "Republicans = evil fundie criminal warmonger vampires" - (BPSCG, 5/11/06)

19th April 2005, 10:58 AM	#15
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by rhoadp Point taken and you've made it plenty of times. Too bad my time machine is on the fritz, we could have this discussion vis-a-vis Iraq before the start of the war, when it should have taken place. Well, let's not forget the past and be condemned to repeat it. Do you think Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons? If so, what should we do about it?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th April 2005, 11:18 AM	#16
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,209	Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG You mean there was no discussion before we invaded Iraq? Who knew? Anyway, the scales have fallen from my eyes now. I can see clearly now. We should do nothing about Iran until we know they have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them with long-range missiles or bombers and they are threatening to blow up Kansas City tomorrow night. If they just plan to blow up Tel Aviv, that's not our lookout. I must have missed the part where all we did was fly over Iraq, bomb their WMD facilities and fly home. Surely we could have done that, right?
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

19th April 2005, 11:21 AM	#17
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by Psi Baba I must have missed the part where all we did was fly over Iraq, bomb their WMD facilities and fly home. Surely we could have done that, right? We did, in the late 90's.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

19th April 2005, 11:30 AM	#18
punchdrunk Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,003	Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG Well, let's not forget the past and be condemned to repeat it. Do you think Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons? If so, what should we do about it? Though I'm somewhat unsure about this site (not very though), yes, I do think they as basic policy are trying to build nuclear weapons. Moreover, I distrust any undemocratic country to effectively police themselves in their use. As the world grows smaller and the bombs get bigger and more plentiful, no question our foreign policy has to change to reflect this fact. Isolationism is of course out of the question. We see the substandard results of tolerating these dictatorships, from the UN to multilateralism and unilateralism negotiations. I ask, like you ask, what are our other options? Continue to dance in place until the next 9/11? Ultimately our goal should be to spread democracy to Iran. We can blow up their site now, we could even invade them if necessary, but we can't occupy every non-democratic country with a chip on their shoulder against us. There has to be other ways to spread democracy. I'm willing to send some of my tax dollars to Sharansky et al for any ideas he/they may have. But, in the meantime, if we have to take action against Iran, I think I am for it. I would hope though that it is done right, with the proper reasoning clearly outlined. Please, intelligence gatherers, do a better job, be more critical, and share your information. Please, senior level officials, don't just pass just along the information that you think your superiors want to hear. Please Mr. Bush, make Sharasnky's case for democracy our case. Give it to the American people and I truly believe they will agree. I know I (a commie liberal bastard) have.
	__________________ Freedom is self-responsibility; nothing less, nothing more. Finally, proof!: "Republicans = evil fundie criminal warmonger vampires" - (BPSCG, 5/11/06)

19th April 2005, 11:44 AM	#19
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: Originally posted by rhoadp Though I'm somewhat unsure about this site (not very though), yes, I do think they as basic policy are trying to build nuclear weapons. Moreover, I distrust any undemocratic country to effectively police themselves in their use. As the world grows smaller and the bombs get bigger and more plentiful, no question our foreign policy has to change to reflect this fact. Isolationism is of course out of the question. We see the substandard results of tolerating these dictatorships, from the UN to multilateralism and unilateralism negotiations. I ask, like you ask, what are our other options? Continue to dance in place until the next 9/11? Well, I was going to commend you to Sharansky, but it appears you've gotten there already. I frankly think Sharansky's approach would be very effective against Iran. They don't totally crush dissent there, as in, say Iraq or North Korea, so the wedge is in the crack (no jokes about atomic wedgies, please...), and they should be susceptible to pressure to liberalize. The problem would be, as always, getting the rest of the world to sign on. How do you get the French and the Germans and the Chinese to agree to treat Iran like a pariah if they don't allow personal freedoms? The Chinese government has no use for personal freedom themselves; how do you get them, of all people, to put the screws to Iran? Quote: We can blow up their site now, we could even invade them if necessary, but we can't occupy every non-democratic country with a chip on their shoulder against us. Well, Ann Coulter suggests we nuke NK, just as an example. That would certainly get everyone's attention...
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th April 2005, 02:56 PM	#20
punchdrunk Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,003	Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG The problem would be, as always, getting the rest of the world to sign on. How do you get the French and the Germans and the Chinese to agree to treat Iran like a pariah if they don't allow personal freedoms? The Chinese government has no use for personal freedom themselves; how do you get them, of all people, to put the screws to Iran? When Reagan put the screws to the Soviet Union, did we have multi-national support? If not, how exactly did his policies affect the USSR, and which ones were most effective? Are there any ideas learned from that era that we can apply now? This is sadly where I have to cry "dunce" because I just don't know.
	__________________ Freedom is self-responsibility; nothing less, nothing more. Finally, proof!: "Republicans = evil fundie criminal warmonger vampires" - (BPSCG, 5/11/06)

19th April 2005, 05:43 PM	#21
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Quote: Originally posted by NoZed Avenger And in Lybia and N. Korea? How's their overall batting average? North Korea is a seperate issue. There is no doubt that it is a cause for concern, but an entirely different strategy is being taken to deal with that country. Libya has been dealt with in a non violent manner, and is now on board as a citizen of the 'free world'. When Ghadaffi's son was out here recently, the conservative pollies were treating him like royalty, they were so keen to get in on the ground floor with trade deals.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

19th April 2005, 06:36 PM	#22
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person North Korea is a seperate issue. There is no doubt that it is a cause for concern, but an entirely different strategy is being taken to deal with that country. Libya has been dealt with in a non violent manner, and is now on board as a citizen of the 'free world'. When Ghadaffi's son was out here recently, the conservative pollies were treating him like royalty, they were so keen to get in on the ground floor with trade deals. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the IAEA and its accuracy. Focus, please: Quote: Originally posted by AUP IMy doubts are because the IAEA says they are not going to be building facilities to produce nukes. That is what they said before the Iraq invasion, too, and they were right. And they were wrong on N Korea. Wrong on Lybia. And if you recall, they were even wrong with Iraq itself before the first Gulf War, when they were embarassed to find an active nuclear program that they had assured everyone didn't exist. That's 1 for 4 in the past fifteen years or so.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

19th April 2005, 09:29 PM	#23
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	good thread I am really impressed with the discourse here on 'my' thread. Thanks all. It is really going along pretty well. Quote: Originally posted by Psi Baba I must have missed the part where all we did was fly over Iraq, bomb their WMD facilities and fly home. Surely we could have done that, right? Grammatron replied -- "we did, in the late 90's " That refers to the bombing campaign initiated by President Clinton when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but we also must recall that Israel flew her F16's to Osirak/Tammuz reactor and bombed it back in 1981 (taking it out before it was made active with nuclear fuel rods). The current situation is similar, and perhaps Arik Sharon can use a boost at home by launching this far-flung adventure? His Gaza disengagement isn't going forward until this Fall, and that leaves him with an open calendar for the Summer. I say, July 20th. It was a date that already had been pencilled-in for some actions, and now the IDF is left with a 'free' day on their schedule.

19th April 2005, 10:50 PM	#24
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Re: good thread Quote: Originally posted by webfusion I am really impressed with the discourse here on 'my' thread. Thanks all. It is really going along pretty well. Grammatron replied -- "we did, in the late 90's " That refers to the bombing campaign initiated by President Clinton when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but we also must recall that Israel flew her F16's to Osirak/Tammuz reactor and bombed it back in 1981 (taking it out before it was made active with nuclear fuel rods). The current situation is similar, and perhaps Arik Sharon can use a boost at home by launching this far-flung adventure? His Gaza disengagement isn't going forward until this Fall, and that leaves him with an open calendar for the Summer. I say, July 20th. It was a date that already had been pencilled-in for some actions, and now the IDF is left with a 'free' day on their schedule. And what if Iran retaliates?
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

20th April 2005, 09:27 AM	#25
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Quote: what if iran retaliates? It seems that such an eventuality has been considered --- http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpa...docid=39497.EN Yesterday (monday, April 18th, 2005), the joint IDF and US Army anti-missile defense exercise which took place over the last few weeks has ended. The exercise had been planned during the last two years and was part of a routine series of exercises meant to examine the coordinated operation of the defense systems of both nations.