Boy who cried wolf.

[Atlas]

But he said similar things about Iraq, and they turned out to be wrong. So when he now stands up and says these things about Iran, there's bound to be a good degree of skepticism about.

Certainly, the standard of evidence is going to have to be a lot better than it was last time if the UK is going to join you in any Iranian jaunts, because if Blair gets on his hind legs in Parliament and starts talking about "Intelligence" he's going to be jeered out of the building.

That was a different time. Many other nations and the UN had similar intelligence on Iraq. We were, in a sense, preaching to the choir. Saddam played his deceitful game and everyone lost.

Now the situation is different. The UN has been disgraced by oil for food. A rogue nation has concealed it's program to acquire nukes. Although it may seem like it's about the trustworthiness of Powell and the US, it's as much about how the UN will act in the face of a potential looming threat.

Will it be of a mind to punish the US by encouraging Iran to acquire a nuke or will it act in it's own best interest and demand Iran let IAEA look around.

 

[Atlas]

Which is one more reason for the US to have not invaded Iraq under false pretences. Now, if I could trust the Bush on Iran, maybe I would be glad to see the prospect of nuclear proliferation being contained, but I can't trust them. I didn't trust them before the Iraq war, and my mistrust has been confirmed totally.

Yah, you can't have a vote. You never believed there were larger dangers in the world beside the US.

 

[Atlas]

At the risk of sounding slightly insane, is this really such a scary idea, provided they only sell to other states? Any state with nuclear weapons, provided such weapons are widespread enough, gets sucked into the MAD situation, and I don't believe anyone - with a home to lose - is actually crazy enough, even Kim Il or Iran, to fire first.

The problem with this situation, as you say, is the possibility of small nukes getting into the hands of factions of no fixed abode - although if connections between, say, Iran and such terrorists were demonstrated, once again Iran would be crazy to try. Although the more states have the technology, the less easy it is to tie down a link to one particular state.

You wanna talk insane. If you think the US went crazy when two buildings collapsed in NY try imagining how we will respond if a terrorist nuke goes off in America.

Will we care who did it or will we just pick a state... Iran - and move against it. Iran will be the first to pay.

Does anyone think we will send our President to talk to the UN. As a matter of fact, it's not unthinkable that a nuke exploding in America will mean the end of the UN - even if the blast doesn't destroy the headquarters - we'll kick it out and stop contributing.

We'll be real soreheads. The world will be very frightened because I can't see us not stomping around in a blind rage. I really think it's something the world wants to avoid. I hope that it doesn't happen because it'll be a green light to Russia and China to move against anyone they choose to while America is distracted. Especially if they convince us they are acting as our ally in doing so. (eg. Russia commits troops to our cause in Iran and nukes Chechnya to clean up it's own terrorist problem there. ) I just think it will be an unimaginably ugly time.

 

[BPSCG]

The idea of Israel being driven into the sea is pretty ludicrous, so perhaps if Israel was willing to forego their nuclear weapons then Iran would be willing to soley invest in atoms for peace.

Why does this kind of advice seem all too familiar to me...? Where have I heard it before...?

Ah, yes, Churchill's The Gathering Storm, where he recounts Britain's 1930's twisting of France's arm. IIRC, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsey MacDonald pressured the French to cut their weapons spending in the 1930's, in the starry-eyed belief that Hitler would see that France was not a military threat to Germany, and would stop his arms buildup.

As I recall, things didn't work out so well. The flaw in Baldwin's and MacDonald's reasoning was that they were counting on Hitler's good faith.

So you're suggesting that someone should pressure Israel to cut their weapons spending today, in the starry-eyed belief that the mullahs would see that Israel is not a military threat to Iran, and would stop their nuclear weapons program.

I guess you're counting on the mullahs' good faith.

 

[Matabiri]

You wanna talk insane. If you think the US went crazy when two buildings collapsed in NY try imagining how we will respond if a terrorist nuke goes off in America.

Will we care who did it or will we just pick a state... Iran - and move against it. Iran will be the first to pay.

You are probably right. I suspect the mullahs are also aware of this.

 

[Atlas]

You are probably right. I suspect the mullahs are also aware of this.

Powell will have been derelict in his duty if he has not spelled it out to them.

(edit: I have even wondered if we have received assurances from the mullahs that they would not permit terrorists to sneak into the US through Mexico with a nuke. I think Bush miscalculates leaving our lower border "unguarded" - drugs and people stream across daily. What calculus let's Bush retain that status quo?

Osama has said he wants to do it. Perhaps that means they'll come down from Canada while we are distracted in the south. Osama might not be someone to take at his word. Still, I don't understand why we don't make an appearence of trying to stop the influx from Mexico.

 

[varwoche]

The US is now paying the price for going to war unilaterally (ok, bilaterally) based on bad intel. So if Iran is up to no good, thanks a lot Bush administration, for destroying US credibility.

 

[Matabiri]

Powell will have been derelict in his duty if he has not spelled it out to them.

Given this situation, could you blame them for trying to assemble nukes? If there's an attack in the US, Iran gets the blame, Iran gets wipes out, regardless of guilt. If, on the other hand, Iran can threaten to counterattack, they might be able to delay enough to protest their innocence.

It's like the big kid in the playground saying to you, "If anyone touches my lunch, I'll beat you up." So you go looking for your own big stick.

 

[Atlas]

Given this situation, could you blame them for trying to assemble nukes? If there's an attack in the US, Iran gets the blame, Iran gets wipes out, regardless of guilt. If, on the other hand, Iran can threaten to counterattack, they might be able to delay enough to protest their innocence.

It's like the big kid in the playground saying to you, "If anyone touches my lunch, I'll beat you up." So you go looking for your own big stick.

I suppose you could read the situation that way but to me it seems like a total misread.

The only reason we would move against Iran is to prevent them from getting a nuke to threaten the world with. They've signed a treaty saying they won't do that. They've repeatedly announced to the world that they are not doing that. Yet their actions and their centrifuges belie their statements.

Because of Iran's posture, if the US experiences a nuke blast we'll come after Iran whether they've got known weapons or not. They would be safer if Iran would not follow the path they are on.

 

[Atlas]

The US is now paying the price for going to war unilaterally (ok, bilaterally) based on bad intel. So if Iran is up to no good, thanks a lot Bush administration, for destroying US credibility.

We also would have paid a price if we looked the other way while Saddam snubbed his nose and remained in violation of all those UN resolutions.

The states of the Middle East at least know for sure that attacks on the US will bring American style violence to their own doorstep.

 

[zenith-nadir]

If there's an attack in the US, Iran gets the blame, Iran gets wipes out, regardless of guilt.

Hmmm, lemme see....which nations are proven to be the biggest sponsors of state terrorism in that neck of the woods?

• Iran
• Syria
• Sudan
• Iraq - scratch that one
• Afganistan - scratch that one too

If, on the other hand, Iran can threaten to counterattack, they might be able to delay enough to protest their innocence.

They have no weapon system that can threaten the US save a terrorist attack.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
The idea of Israel being driven into the sea is pretty ludicrous, so perhaps if Israel was willing to forego their nuclear weapons then Iran would be willing to soley invest in atoms for peace.

Jim Bowen

So if Israel foregoes their nuclear weapons Iran does an ideological 180? Hardly, but nice try.

Originally posted by Demon
If we are going to be even handed about this, I`d say that Israel should also be open to inspection.

So if Israel is inspected then what? Iran stops sponsoring terrorism, does an ideological 180 and stops trying to develop the bomb? Damn those Israelis!

 

[varwoche]

They have no weapon system that can threaten the US save a terrorist attack.

Whew. That's a relief.

If and when the day comes that someone tries to nuke the US, you can bet it's gonna come via parcel post, not missile.

 

[AtheistArchon]

We also would have paid a price if we looked the other way while Saddam snubbed his nose and remained in violation of all those UN resolutions.

- Yeah, chemical/biological/nuclear weapons attacks. He was in league with al Qaeda after all. Prez said so. No? Maybe he would have thrown sand at us... yeah, that's a 'price'.

- OH oh oh wait, no, didn't you get the memo? We didn't attack Iraq because we felt threatened, silly, we attacked Iraq to liberate it. Look how liberated they are.

The states of the Middle East at least know for sure that attacks on the US will bring American style violence to their own doorstep.

- Uh huh, and Iraq attacked us... when?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Whew. That's a relief.

Ya I know. Who's policies openly support terrorism? Iran. Who's government doesn't represent the people? Iran. Who passes death sentences on Iranian reformers? Iran. Who's lawmakers chanted "Death to America" and "god is great" as they passed a bill to continue efforts to develop a nuclear energy program three weeks ago? Iran.

What? Me worry?

 

[Atlas]

... Uh huh, and Iraq attacked us... when?

ok I left myself open to that one. But Iraq was tactical in a global stategy on terror states. Libya got the message.

And though it has been messy, the fact that those in power will no longer be in power if the US gets medeval on them cannot have been lost on the mullahs and thugs in charge.

 

[varwoche]

From same WA Post article:

The official said the CIA remains unsure about the authenticity of the documents and how the informant came into their possession. A second official would say only that there are questions about the source of the information.

I remain highly distrustful of Iran. That said, Chalabi and the neo-cons certainly provided a model for disaffected parties wishing to affect regime change.

 

[Atlas]

From same WA Post article:
I remain highly distrustful of Iran. That said, Chalabi and the neo-cons certainly provided a model for disaffected parties wishing to affect regime change.

This is a very relevant perspective. One hopes that the US realizes how it's own myopia allowed us to be played by Chalabi and his ilk.

Still, it's quite possible that no one really believed Chalabi but that he was a useful liar for the neocon world view. If that's the case, we possibly learn nothing from the experience except that ideologues can be motivated by a spoonfeeding of carefully constructed seductive falsehoods. But I think we already knew that.

Powell's comment was right on. We should be concerned. Iran has not played straight with us in the past. We should make sure our agreements with them can be verified. Otherwise we risk going too far the other way and allowing the Bomb like taking N Korea at it's word.

 

[varwoche]

More reporting that raises the Chalabi flag, emphasis added:

The issue surfaced when The National Council of Resistance of Iran -- which is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations -- revealed satellite photographs this week it said showed a hidden nuclear plant in Iran, allegations the Iranians denied.

CNN

 

[Grammatron]

Before that, the USA (yes, Uncle Sam) was cooperating with Iran to build nukes there. I worked on the program.

Mind you, the program never came to fruition, but the intent was there. Makes for interesting speculation on what the mideast would look like had we carried the program to a successful conclusion.

That's correct, all the way back in the 70's.

I found this good link that outlines Iran's nuclear program history and concerns.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

If and when the day comes that someone tries to nuke the US, you can bet it's gonna come via parcel post, not missile.

So let's spend untold gazillions (which we don't actually have) on a missle-defense shield! C'mon, gang!