• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are we going into Iran?

billydkid

Illuminator
billydkid
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
4,917
from Pat Buchanan
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan35.html

I also heard Scott Ritter the other day on NPR talking about Iran and he made a fairly compelling case that occupying both Iran and Iraq have been on the agenda of the administration from the beginning and he laid out the steps he expects the adminstration to take in the lead up to Iran. He also made the argument that, with our military so stretched, the adminstration will likely resort to the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons. It was pretty chilling and he went into great detail in defense of his arguments.
 
"...occupying both Iran and Iraq have been on the agenda..."?
"the adminstration will likely resort to the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons."?

I disagree, especially with the 2nd claim. I will say, however, that given this administrations' track record, nothing would surprise me. I don't see it even close to being likely. I'd be interested in a transcript of this interview.

From Buchanan:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"There is only one thing worse than ... exercising the military option," says Sen. John McCain. "That is a nuclear-armed Iran. The military option is the last option, but cannot be taken off the table."
Click to expand...
I agree that it cannot be taken off the table.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," McCain said Iran's nuclear program presents "the most grave situation we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror."
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush employed the same grim terms he used before invading Iraq. If Iran goes forward with nuclear enrichment, said Bush, it could "pose a grave threat to the security of the world."[/FONT]
Click to expand...
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I agree that it is a big concern.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Thus far, Tehran has taken only two baby steps. It has renewed converting "yellowcake" into uranium hexafluoride, the gaseous substance used to create enriched uranium. And Iran has broken the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals at its nuclear facility at Natanz, where uranium hexafluoride is to be processed into enriched uranium. But on Saturday, the foreign ministry said it was still suspending "fuel production."
Click to expand...
Okay. No reason to doubt that...

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away. Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb – in three years.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they will acquire some of it elsewhere?

I'm not saying we should attrack Iran (especially "we" meaning the USA). Buchanan does bring up valid points, though I think his argument is weak. What's up with Ritter and his "[/FONT]the adminstration will likely resort to the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons."?

I only clicked this thread because I briefly confused Pat Buchanan with Robertson, hoping for yet another innane quote from the latter. Only after reading half the article and noting that it was somewhat cogent did I realize who it was heh.
 
schplurg said:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What's up with Ritter and his "[/FONT]the adminstration will likely resort to the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons."?
Click to expand...

I've heard it said that many of Iran's nuclear facilities are in deep, hardened bunkers. Assuming that this is true, and that it is decided that military action needed to be taken, what would be the alternative? I can't see public opinion enjoying seeing soldiers being cut to ribbons as they inch their way into the bunkers. I'm seriously wondering what options we'd have, by the way, not just being rhetorical.
 
I suppose you could take the option that the rest of the world does and not invade them.

I can't see that it is a remotely viable policy to go about invading every country you don't trust who apparantly develops the capability to produce nuclear weapons. They will all do it eventually. And by that point the USA will be even more hated and the main target.

It's not the weapons that are the main problem, it's the hatred and fear.
 
There was an interesting interview with Robert Joesph (the U.S. Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security) on Newsnight last night - you can see it here for the next few hours : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4625368.stm# (About 30 minutes into the meeting.)

From that (my transcript so not verified 100% accurate!!)

Interviewer: Is there consensus that Iran should be referred to the IEAE

RJ: blah...blah... We believe along with our European colleagues that the process has now come to a dead end and that the next step is to hold a special meeting of the IEAE governors council for the purpose of referring Iran to the SC.


(ETA to add a bit more)

Interviewer:...Surely from a USA perspective you'd like to talk about sanctions straightway but other don't want to... ?

RJ:We have not forced a discussion of sanctions on anyone... .... there are a number of steps that we need to consider and take before we get to that point in this process...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Strange, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is only applied selectively. It is much like a drunk asking other people not to drink!

Invading Iran would be a huge mistake:
1. Why did the Iranian revolution occur in the first place.
2. Oh yes please, let's erase the memory of RONALD REGAN SELLING WEAPONS TO OUR ENEMIES by just invading them.
3. When we invaded Iraq, it had been depleted by tem years of sanction, Iran is a living economy and has many more resources.
4. It would be making Pat Robertson's dreams come true.
 
Dancing David said:
Invading Iran would be a huge mistake:
Click to expand...
Most likely it would. But the current US administration has placed such a high store on saying "Iran shall not go nuclear"; could they back down if diplomatic means failed (as it appears they might)?
 
Many Iranians do not support the theocracy. They feel that the Mullahs and the president are 100% wrong giving CPR to the dead ideology of religious tyranny. They hate the censorship inside Iran and they lothe that hard-liners want to force the chicken back into the egg. But the Iranian government uses intimidation and thugs from the intelligence department of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards to keep the Mullahs and the president in power.

The reason I know this is I work with a couple Iranians who often talk about their experiences and how their families feel back home. They both say that a large portion of the people they know in Iran are embarassed and angry at Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. I think the Americans know about this discontent amongst the Iranian populace and I feel they will exploit that before they ever invade Iran. The chance of invading Iran is probably around .00001%.

Even today, Jan 18th, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in Syria to consolidate relations with the other nutcases in Damascus. Syria+Iran vs the world...I wonder who's gonna win that one. :rolleyes:
 
 
The problem Manny is Chiraq makes the same mistake most Westerners do. Most people fear death as a punishment while Islamic fundamentalists do not. Islamic fundamentalists welcome death as a one-way "ticket to paradise" and 72 virgins....especially if it comes during a jihad.

Chiraq's narrow-minded thinking is just egging the religious fundamentalists on. The real trick is to cut them off at the pass before they ever have nukes to threaten you with.
 
Oh, I wasn't being serious, Z. I mean, come on -- France doing something??? Ha! I say, ha!

But I do appreciate him setting the precedent. Use WMD, get nuked. If more countries say that maybe the moderates in Iran will start to see just how risky it is to have the nutjobs running the country. If the world would support them the way the US didn't support the Kurds and Shia in Iran in the '90s the country can solve its own problems.
 
manny said:
Oh, I wasn't being serious, Z. I mean, come on -- France doing something??? Ha! I say, ha!
Click to expand...
That reminds me of a joke:

How many gears does a French tank have? Five, four in reverse and one forward (in case of attack from behind). ;)
 
I really think Bush needs to finish eating his vegetables before he can have desert. Parenting a President is not an easy task and we need to show a united front until he can determine right from wrong on his own.
 
There is a relatively low-risk option for dealing w/ Iran - a naval blockade. Stop all their oil exports, and thus 90% of their economy. If thay have pipelines out of the country, put them out of commission.

Whether or not there is the political will to keep this up, possibly for many years, is the big question. China will kick and scream about it, but really wouldn't be able to do anything else.
 
WildCat said:
There is a relatively low-risk option for dealing w/ Iran - a naval blockade. Stop all their oil exports, and thus 90% of their economy. If thay have pipelines out of the country, put them out of commission.

Whether or not there is the political will to keep this up, possibly for many years, is the big question. China will kick and scream about it, but really wouldn't be able to do anything else.
Click to expand...

What about the knock on affect for the world's economies?
 
zenith-nadir said:
Many Iranians do not support the theocracy. They feel that the Mullahs and the president are 100% wrong giving CPR to the dead ideology of religious tyranny. They hate the censorship inside Iran and they lothe that hard-liners want to force the chicken back into the egg. But the Iranian government uses intimidation and thugs from the intelligence department of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards to keep the Mullahs and the president in power.

The reason I know this is I work with a couple Iranians who often talk about their experiences and how their families feel back home. They both say that a large portion of the people they know in Iran are embarassed and angry at Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. I think the Americans know about this discontent amongst the Iranian populace and I feel they will exploit that before they ever invade Iran. The chance of invading Iran is probably around .00001%.

Even today, Jan 18th, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in Syria to consolidate relations with the other nutcases in Damascus. Syria+Iran vs the world...I wonder who's gonna win that one. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which makes you wonder why, when there were more moderate governments in power in Iran, the US didn't normalise relations and end the tension between the two countries. Never miss an opportunity?
 
Darat said:
What about the knock on affect for the world's economies?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the UN could allow them to sell some oil, in exchange for food/medicine... :boggled:

That's where the political will comes in.
 
a_unique_person said:
Which makes you wonder why, when there were more moderate governments in power in Iran, the US didn't normalise relations and end the tension between the two countries. Never miss an opportunity?
Click to expand...
There was a time when more moderate islamofascist ayatollahs and mullahs ran the place? Do tell...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom