When will the US invade Iran?

[politbureau]

Fred,

You say Iran openly flouts the system. What part of the voluntarily entered into nuclear non-proliferation treaty is Iran violating currently? Iran violated the treaty in the past by not disclosing all its uranium enrichment facilities but there’s no evidence it has undisclosed enrichment facilities currently.

Why couldn’t Iran just withdraw from the treaty since it’s voluntary? Israel never signed the treaty and has developed nuclear weapons. Did Israel openly flout the same system in doing so?

Isn’t the U.S. the one who’s violating the treaty by denying Iran the right under the treaty to enrich uranium for nuclear energy purposes?

Do you have any proof Iran is enriching uranium beyond the 3.5% level to the highly enriched level?

[fred_smith]

[quote]Fred,

You say Iran openly flouts the system. [/quote]

Not me. The UN Security Council upon recommendation of the IAEA determined that Iran was in breach of its commitments.

What part of the voluntarily entered into nuclear non-proliferation treaty is Iran violating currently?

Why don’t you ask the UN security council? What would get even Russia and China to sign onto a resolution calling upon Iran to come clean?

Iran violated the treaty in the past by not disclosing all its uranium enrichment facilities but there’s no evidence it has undisclosed enrichment facilities currently.

Oh yes, I get it. Twenty years of lies but now we are telling the truth. You have to trust us…

Why couldn’t Iran just withdraw from the treaty since it’s voluntary?

Why doesn’t it?

Israel never signed the treaty and has developed nuclear weapons. Did Israel openly flout the same system in doing so?

I know how you feel about Israel Spook. Tired of dealing with your “concerns” regarding that country so let’s just stick with Iran.

Isn’t the U.S. the one who’s violating the treaty by denying Iran the right under the treaty to enrich uranium for nuclear energy purposes?

In a perfect world Spook… in a perfect world… Unfortunately, we don’t live in one of those as of yet do we… Again, why not answer why all the members of the UN security council view this as a threat? Why the IAEA referred Iran to the UN security council? Why ask me?

Do you have any proof Iran is enriching uranium beyond the 3.5% level to the highly enriched level?

I do not, nor does anyone else. The concerns as you well know are based on the nature of the Iranian regime. If this were Canada that we were discussing no one would give a hoot. If it were Thailand, probably not many would care, but when you take the stated aims of the national leadership at face value and examine its past record, then gosh, yes, many people are concerned just as they were about Saddam and for you and others to pretend that somehow this is inconsistent (double standards) or unreasonable is why no one takes your “concerns” seriously.

Yes, there are double standards. The US has a very good track record as do most Western nations. There is a record of accountability and responsible behavior. Iran on the other hand like Iraq, like Pakistan is a cause for concern. If you do not see that, then fine, but don’t pretend that our leaders in addition to those of other countries, who do not have the luxury of playing such clever little games, will have to take anything you or any others of your political views seriously. You can talk all you want, but if you do not recognize that this is a serious situation, then what more do we have to talk about?

It is. No, it isn’t. Yes, it is. No, it isn’t.

The only difference is that my view is more attuned to that of the US and other nations’ leadership. Therefore, what you say and how you view the situation will continue to be based on subjective hypotheses while those of us who are concerned will be actually seeing our views addressed. Someone will actually be acting upon our concerns. That is the difference.

[politbureau]

Hubboy. What a thicket of double-standards and evasions.

The irony is the U.S. is currently demonstrably violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by agreeing to transfer nuclear technology to India, a non-member of the treaty. As far as I can tell, Iran’s current “violation” is to no longer voluntarily agree to give up its right to enrich uranium as guaranteed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in order to defuse tensions with the U.S.

I don’t have any illusions that Iran won’t build nuclear weapons as soon as it can but it’s a lie to claim Iran is violating the non-proliferation treaty by enriching uranium just as it was a lie to claim the U.N. Security Council authorized the U.S. to invade Iraq. The truth is the U.S. no longer likes the terms of the treaty it signed twenty years ago.

[fred_smith]

I do not get your point. Are you suggesting that the US is unilaterally overturning the nuclear nonproliferation agreement because it is now accepting India as a member of that club? a fact that occurred 8 years ago? and that by doing so, we no longer have any right or interest in ensuring that nations like Iran do not go nuclear? Where will that end by the way? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Turkey? Syria? Egypt? Libya? All with nuclear weapons? What a great idea. They are such sources of stability now. Let’s be “fair” and give everyone nuclear weapons. After all, Israel has them right?

Anyway, fair, double standards, whatever. I can guarantee you that no amount of jawing is going to see this administration accept a nuclear Iran. Now, how you want to address that whether in terms of international law, double standards, etc. is not going to change that fact so get used to it.

[politbureau]

[quote=“fred smith”]I do not get your point. Are you suggesting that the US is unilaterally overturning the nuclear nonproliferation agreement because it is now accepting India as a member of that club? a fact that occurred 8 years ago? and that by doing so, we no longer have any right or interest in ensuring that nations like Iran do not go nuclear? Where will that end by the way? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Turkey? Syria? Egypt? Libya? All with nuclear weapons? What a great idea. They are such sources of stability now. Let’s be “fair” and give everyone nuclear weapons. After all, Israel has them right?

Anyway, fair, double standards, whatever. I can guarantee you that no amount of jawing is going to see this administration accept a nuclear Iran. Now, how you want to address that whether in terms of international law, double standards, etc. is not going to change that fact so get used to it.[/quote]

Good god, Fred, you’re not even making any effort to know the facts whereof you pontificate.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty forbids member states to transfer nuclear weapons know-how to other states, requires them to reduce their own nuclear weapons arsenals, not to use nuclear weapons against other nations except if attacked first etc. etc. Take your pick of treaty terms the Bush administration is flouting.

What a flub-fucking mess. I quit.

[fred_smith]

Good god, Fred, you’re not even making any effort to know the facts whereof you pontificate.

This should be good…

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty forbids member states to transfer nuclear weapons know-how to other states,

To my knowledge, we are helping India with its civilian nuclear power industry and Congress has required that these be separated to such a degree as to make any benefit to nuclear weapons research difficult to impossible.

requires them to reduce their own nuclear weapons arsenals,

We are cutting our arsenals.

not to use nuclear weapons against other nations except if attacked first etc. etc.

Oh all right. We will find a big enough bomb to serve the same purpose if or perhaps when we need to take out these sites in Iran.

Take your pick of treaty terms the Bush administration is flouting.

yawn.

What a flub-fucking mess.

nice new term. I intend to incorporate it.

I quit.

My God. I have served a useful purpose today.

[jdsmith]

[quote]Posted on Wed, Apr. 12, 2006
email this
print this
Iran says it has

[Durins_Bane]

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote]Posted on Wed, Apr. 12, 2006
email this
print this
Iran says it has

[Ma_Ke]

I am an American and I must say, ruling the world seems like a lot of hard work to me. My kids and wife don’t listen to me.
Let someone else rule the world, I have to go and feed my cat.
PEACE! PEACE!

[TainanCowboy]

A bit more has come across the wire:

[quote]"Enrichment is a key process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material needed for a nuclear reactor. But thousands of centrifuges

[dearpeter]

@fred smith

Anyway, fair, double standards, whatever. I can guarantee you that no amount of jawing is going to see this administration accept a nuclear Iran. Now, how you want to address that whether in terms of international law, double standards, etc. is not going to change that fact so get used to it.

I don’t get your point. Are you suggesting that this forum should only be used to debate the finer points of how the US should go about stopping Iran’s nuclear progress?

Heck, maybe I do get your point, but I sure don’t like it. That’s the biggest problem in the world today. Inertia of unreasonableness. Endless economic growth in a finite world. Endless development of weapons and strategies to oppress those who disagree. Endless demonizing of someone in order to justify the endless weapons development.

Fred, you say that the US is a source of stability, and has a record of accountability and responsible behavior. That is flat out wrong. The US has manufactured an insane number of nuclear bombs over the years, not just a few for self-defense. The Soviets were keeping up with them, not the other way around. How can you call that responsible? The US continues to keep hundreds armed and ready to go. Is that in case aliens attack us? And recently the US developed low-yield nukes against the objections of most arms control experts the world over. And now the US is throwing around hints that they just might want to try them out in a real-life situation.

This is what causes the problem in the first place. It is no surprise that Muslim countries are scared shitless of America and want to get nukes for their own self-defense. They’re sitting on shrinking oil supplies while America is still nearly dependent on the stuff. If you were born in Iran Fred, I bet you’d be talking just like they are. But you don’t think that matters. (i.e. We claptrap pacifists should muzzle ourselves out of good taste and respect for our caretaker class.) This is basically the position that might is right.

[fred_smith]

I don’t get your point.

This is something I understand supremely.

Are you suggesting that this forum should only be used to debate the finer points of how the US should go about stopping Iran’s nuclear progress?

No. But realize that when you come with half-baked ideas that you have learned from zmag.org, that no one (other than perhaps the Carter administration) is going to take you seriously. You sound like a contestant for a beauty pageant. If chosen, I will do more to ensure that the world is a happy place filled with happy people who are happy all the time. Why won’t government leaders to more about this? Obviously, they just don’t care. But I am a happy person and I want others to be happy too. Won’t you share my dream?

Heck, maybe I do get your point, but I sure don’t like it.

Growing up is never easy and you don’t have to like it.

That’s the biggest problem in the world today.

What?

Inertia of unreasonableness.

Sounds like a perfect description of a debate with you.

Endless economic growth in a finite world.

Hoo boy. I can imagine where this is going…

Endless development of weapons

Endless? development of weapons? What the hell are you talking about? Nuclear weapons stockpiles are far lower today than at any time for the past what? 50 years?

and strategies to oppress those who disagree.

You forgot to use of marginalized peoples. Penalty.

Endless demonizing of someone in order to justify the endless weapons development.

Are you kidding? Do you think that there is no reason for “demonizing” Iran? None at all? None for Saddam? None for North Korea? Those are the three that are being demonized? Have you been to any of those three? Care to disagree or explain why they should not have been demonized?

Fred, you say that the US is a source of stability, and has a record of accountability and responsible behavior.

Precisely. That is exactly why for the first time in history no collective has gathered to counter the “hegemon.”

That is flat out wrong.

Right.

The US has manufactured an insane number of nuclear bombs over the years, not just a few for self-defense

Ummm. Ever read the comments of Soviet generals who admitted that the US outspent them and hence hastened the collapse of communism? Seems to have worked. If they think so, what’s your point?

The Soviets were keeping up with them, not the other way around.

Declassified documents show that the Soviets were not just keeping up but attempting to surpass. They lost when Reagan came along and outspent them. The Soviets also funded a lot of “peace” movements in the West and lo and behold guess what? You swallowed it all hook line and sinker.

How can you call that responsible? The US continues to keep hundreds armed and ready to go.

Because it wants to dominate the world? and there are no threats?

Is that in case aliens attack us?

Talking to you makes me believe aliens really have come to the earth and I think when they got to you, the probed the wrong end.

And recently the US developed low-yield nukes against the objections of most arms control experts the world over.

against the wishes of most arms control experts? Oh how I want to yawn. Yes, all these “experts.” Spare me.

And now the US is throwing around hints that they just might want to try them out in a real-life situation.

When dealing with a nation like Iran, all and I do mean ALL options should be on the table. I would support that.

This is what causes the problem in the first place.

Really? America? We are the reason why Iran wants to kill all the Jews? We are the reason why Iran imprisons and tortures its people? We are the reason why there are no freedoms in Iran? We are the reason why Iran supports terrorism all over the world?

It is no surprise that Muslim countries are scared shitless of America and want to get nukes for their own self-defense.

What nations in the Muslim World are scared of the US? I can name a few… Libya, Syria, Iran… Anyone else? Why are those nations afraid of the US?

They’re sitting on shrinking oil supplies while America is still nearly dependent on the stuff.

You know if that were true, why didn’t we “colonize” Kuwait when we took it over? Why don’t we control Iraq’s oil supply now? Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia and take over their oil fields? So many theories and so little evidence.

If you were born in Iran Fred, I bet you’d be talking just like they are.

Ummm. I have been to Iran and YOU are talking like the LEADERS of the country. You do not know how the people of that country feel. Most of them are very pro America. Did you know that?

But you don’t think that matters.

No. what I think does not matter is your clever little opinions. I think that the world should be beautiful. If everything were beautiful, we would all be happier since beautiful things make people happy…

(i.e. We claptrap pacifists

I will let you judge yourself. Claptrap works for me. But pacifist? I don’t think so. You would like to think of yourself as a pacifist but is that really what you are? No. You are an enabler who enables a gangsta government like the one in Iran to run roughshod over its people and threaten and destablize the entire region. You cannot seem to comprehend that Iran is NOT a democracy and that the government does not represent the people. Do you understand that? Do you also understand that the vast majority of Iranians are very pro America and want better ties with our nation? How do you explain that?

should muzzle ourselves

Even I am not that optimistic.

out of good taste

Can’t squeeze blood from a turnip…

and respect for our caretaker class.)

What would happen to people like you without us? Think very carefully before you answer. The closest analogy I can think of is watching a drunk retard run with scissors.

This is basically the position that might is right.

No. This is the position that the US and the West are right because they deliver better societies in terms of politics, economics, social conditions and living standards.

[TainanCowboy]

Just in…

[quote] Six major powers to meet on Iran
From correspondents in the United Nations
13apr06

POLITICAL directors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in Moscow next Wednesday to discuss the Iranian nuclear crisis, China’s UN envoy said today.

Wang Guangya said he had been told by Beijing that the meeting would bring together senior officials from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States in the Russian capital.
heraldsun.news.com.au/common … 02,00.html[/quote]

[dearpeter]

Hey fredface:

[ul]Treat people with respect. Don’t be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger. [/ul]

Ever read that? I wonder how you have managed to make so my posts without getting yourself banned. Maybe there has been some recent enraging event in your life.

BTW, you never answered my question as to why the US continues to need hundreds of operational nukes. Shouldn’t a stockpile on the order of Britain’s or France’s suffice?

[fred_smith]

Hey fredface:

Hey

Treat people with respect. Don’t be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.

Isn’t that what we are doing? I see. It is okay for you to refer to administration policies as half-baked but if someone were to use the same term to question your theories than that is out of line?

Ever read that?

It’s right here to the right of this box as I type.

I wonder how you have managed to make so my posts without getting yourself banned.

Most of the time, I would imagine that people’s eyes glaze over well before they finish reading my posts. For the ones that nibble a bit, they may find that the key tone is one of irony.

Maybe there has been some recent enraging event in your life.

Because I disagree with and challenge your assertions? Do I sound angry to you? I was aiming for contemptuous. Can you please advise how I may better get that “message” across?

BTW, you never answered my question as to why the US continues to need hundreds of operational nukes. Shouldn’t a stockpile on the order of Britain’s or France’s suffice?

Actually, I am sure that there is a good strategic reason for this or Democrat and Republican administrations alike would not have continued doing so. I personally have never read much about this. Sorry, I cannot answer your question.

[purple_people_eaters]

dearpeter, where did Fred make this a personal attack. Just because you don’t agree with him it doesn’t make it personal.

And now the US is throwing around hints that they just might want to try them out in a real-life situation.

When was this? Who said this?

[Toe_Tag]

@fred smith

Anyway, fair, double standards, whatever. I can guarantee you that no amount of jawing is going to see this administration accept a nuclear Iran. Now, how you want to address that whether in terms of international law, double standards, etc. is not going to change that fact so get used to it.

You seem to be the mother of all jawing.

I can guarantee you that no amount of jawing is going to change the fact that you are short. How you want to address that whether in terms of international law, double standards, etc. is not going to change that fact so get used to it.

[dearpeter]

[quote=“purple people eaters”]dearpeter, where did Fred make this a personal attack. Just because you don’t agree with him it doesn’t make it personal.

And now the US is throwing around hints that they just might want to try them out in a real-life situation.

When was this? Who said this?[/quote]

Q#1: Let me do some cut and paste here. It will be the only time I bother.

[ul]you come with half-baked ideas that you have learned from zmag.org
You sound like a contestant for a beauty pageant.
Sounds like a perfect description of a debate with you.
I think when they [aliens] got to you, the probed the wrong end.
what I think does not matter is your clever little opinions.
What are you Canadian?
We will be sure and consult with the likes of you…
just think of yourself as the weakest link.
[/ul]

That’s quite a load of second person commentary. I think it’s much more aggressive in tone than any other poster I have read. If we all behaved like that, these forums would not be worthwhile at all.

Q#2: I said ‘hints’ coming from the US. Well, read the Seymour Hersh article for starters. I don’t think my wording is misrepresentative, although my perception of ‘hints’ is, of course, subjective. But look at this. It seems like a pretty direct hint.

Here’s a link to the whole document:
whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf
On page 27 is this:

Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role. We are
strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike
systems (both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities); active and passive
defenses, including missile defenses; and a responsive infrastructure, all bound together
by enhanced command and control, planning, and intelligence systems. These
capabilities will better deter some of the new threats we face, while also bolstering our
security commitments to allies. Such security commitments have played a crucial role in
convincing some countries to forgo their own nuclear weapons programs, thereby aiding
our nonproliferation objectives.

[Jaboney]

Say Martha, give the antenna a twist, would ya? We’re getting static on the internet again. … I say, there’s static on the 'net again. … No, I don’t know what they’re saying, it’s fuzzed out. … What’s that, you say it’ll all blow over? I certainly hope so.

[dearpeter]

Back on topic…

Hersh has given a follow-up interview to Democracy Now!.

Seymour Hersh: Bush Administration Planning Possible Major Air Attack on Iran