Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPresident Obama's meeting today with Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, won't be focused exclusively on Israel's stubborn refusal to move forward on a deal with the Palestinians. Also on the table will be the issue of Iran. And the president ought to tell the prime minister: "We're handling this, so sit down and shut up." The last thing Obama needs is more Israeli bluster about taking out Iran's nukes militarily at such a sensitive moment in the talks. Why? Because Israeli bombast makes it a lot harder for Iranian leaders to follow through on a deal that is controversial within Iranian politics, since the Israeli bombast makes it look like they are capitulating to the "Zionist entity" if they accept the deal.
The deal, you'll remember, reached Oct. 1, would provide for Iran to ship most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to Russia and France for reprocessing for a medical-use reactor. As the deal became a political soccer ball in Iran, Tehran stalled -- and new proposals surfaced. One, reportedly by Iran, would have Iran maintain control of the fuel under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on its own terrritory, but that's a nonstarter. Another, brokered by IAEA, would allow Iran to ship its uranium to neighboring Turkey, while Russia would substitute reprocessed fuel of its own.
In spite of alarmist reports about Iran's foot-dragging on the nuclear talks, the Obama administration seems to be handling the talks professionally and intelligently. Glyn Davies, the US representative to the IAEA told Reuters:
"There have been communications back and forth. We are in extra innings in these negotiations. That's sometimes the way these things go. We want to give some space to Iran to work through this. It's a tough issue for them, quite obviously, and we're hoping for an early positive answer from the Iranians."
Davies -- who, by the way, seems to have been a very competent negotiator during all of this -- added:
"Iran has the opportunity to embrace this deal, and it's a very good, very positive...and fair deal. It would do much to move this process forward. When the reactor's fuel runs out next year, we would help to keep it going. There are hospitals, doctors, cancer patients who rely on the material produced there. We know the leadership in Tehran needs to keep the reactor going. We would like to help with that effort."
Earlier, an Obama administration official told the New York Times that Iran had reneged on the deal and that they'd given up hope that the Oct. 1 agreement would be implemented. That, clearly, is a Cassandra-like interpretation of a fast moving situation. Here's the Times:
"But members of the Obama administration, in interviews over the weekend, said that they had now all but lost hope that Iran would follow through with an agreement reached in Geneva on Oct. 1 to send its fuel out of the country temporarily -- buying some time for negotiations over its nuclear program."'If you listen to what the Iranians have said publicly and privately over the past week,' one senior administration official said Sunday, 'it's evident that they simply cannot bring themselves to do the deal.'"
Conservatives, neo-conservatives, and other Chicken Littles have, of course, echoed such black pessimism. For example, the New York Daily News, never reluctant to embrace bombast, editorialized:
"At what point will the world take 'no' for an answer? The Obama administration has gone through the motions of extending a hand to the terrorists of Tehran. Turns out, that's all the back-and-forth was ever to be: motions. Because the Islamic Republic is obsessed with acquiring nuclear weapons and well on its way toward that goal."There's no fooling ourselves any longer."
In all of this, it's interesting to ask: what, exactly, is going on in Tehran? The Ahmadinejad-Khamenei regime initially agreed to the Oct. 1 deal, which was widely hailed as a breakthough. But back home, it ran into a firestorm of criticism. Pragmatists, centrists and reformists, the opposition coalition, criticized Ahmadinejad for caving in to the West, an especially despicable type of political opportunism by the Green Movement. Hard-line conservatives, including the Larijani brothers, also blasted the deal, leaving Ahmadinejad alone to defend it. (And defend it he did.) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Leader, didn't tip his hand, although he delivered a pompous and bombastic speech warning about the evils of negotiating with the United States.
If Iran, since the June 12 election fiasco, has become an authoritarian, military-style regime that brooks no opposition, then the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei regime ought to have been able to do anything it wants in the talks, and ignore domestic criticism. The fact that that the deal is so controversial is a signal that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei don't feel confident enough, in the face of a political challenge, to ignore the criticism. On the other hand, it's possible that both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are, in fact, unwilling to hand over the uranium, and they're just using the opposition noise as an excuse to renege on the deal. There are other possibilities, too. All of which indicate, as I've said before, that the United States can't fine tune its approach to the talks in order to game Iranian domestic politics. We don't know enough about how it works. That is precisely what Ambassador Davies seems to understand.
Let's hope President Obama makes it clear to Netanyahu, too, that Washington won't tolerate Israeli interference in the talks.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
"We don't know enough about how it works."
Does it even 'work' at all?
In order to successfully negotiate with Iran, one needs a functional government that has the Iranian people's mandate with which to negotiate.
Seen one of those in Tehran lately?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 08:46am
Something doesn't add up....particularly the neo-con spin here in this country.
Seems a hawk (or even a "patriot" if you like) like Netanyahu would have sent the bombers flying...if Iran was on the verge of "imminent weaponization" of its uranium.
Hard to imagine Bibi as "lily-livered" or "under Obama's thumb"....so only one option-
Things aren't as dire as the "Iranian nukes will be raining down within months" crowd says???
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 09:15am
In order to successfully negotiate with Iran, one needs a functional government that has the Iranian people's mandate with which to negotiate.
was that the case with the soviets?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 09:19am
was that the case with the soviets? Posted by emile duBois at 11/09/2009 @ 09:19am |
Okay, substitute 'iron-clad totalitarian control' for 'people's mandate' then.
And speaking of which....happy anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, folks!
Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 09:23am
The proposed "deal" is horrible for Iran. If Iran ships out its low-enriched uranium (LEU) , it will never see anything it return. Is it so difficult for people to understand the Iranian point of view? Russia and France are not to be trusted. Russian got billions of dollars from Iran to start the Bushehr reactor, scheduled for operation more than two years ago. It is still sitting idle. Also, Iran is part owner of a French firm that was supposed to send some nuclear material to Iran. The French government has blocked it. In the mean time, Sarkozy and Kouchner make the most outlandish comments about Iran. Why can't the US and the other Western powers show some flexibility. Iran has made several reasonable proposed options. One would exchange LEU for the 20% enriched uranium in two batches. The other would store the LEU under IAEA supervision in Kish Island until the desired 20% enriched uranium is delivered. It is clear that the Western powers are not sincere in their approach to Iran. As far as Netanyahu is concerned, it is best to ignore him. He is totally crazy.
Posted by Quinterius at 11/09/2009 @ 10:10am
Another Monday appeasement posting by Nichols in which he advocates for slamming an ally while surrendering to the terrorists in Tehran
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:28am
St. Michael Traveler MyAmerica
Israel and Iran: Nuclear Disarmament and Foreign Policy
The national security is the driving force for Iran. If security is good for Israel, then, it is also good for Turks, Persians and Arabs.
Israel is the only nuclear bomb state in the Middle East. A nuclear bomb free Middle East will remove pressure from all the other nations, including Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against Israeli's nuclear bombs.
Soviet Union had to develop the nuclear bomb because USA had already developed nuclear bomb. Now, Israel demands that she must be the only nation in the region to have the nuclear bomb.
Let us create a win-win situation for all of the nations in the Middle East. I suggest the following three steps for the Middle East:
1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium: USA should join the Iranian nuclear fuel consortium. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development.
2. Nuclear Shield: An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran, Israel, Turkey and all the Arab nations in the region.
3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East: This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.
We and our representatives in the Congress must stop the hideous play of hypocrisy and face the facts in the Middle East, Israel has nuclear bombs. For almost 50 years we have been playing this game of patsy to Israel and her demands. We must place our national interest above those of Israel and recognize that we must be fair in dealing with all the nations in the region.
Posted by StMichaelTraveler at 11/09/2009 @ 10:30am
"In order to successfully negotiate with Iran, one needs a functional government that has the Iranian people's mandate with which to negotiate. Seen one of those in Tehran lately?"
~Snowball
There are at least a few problems with this statement. First, Emile is right, but more to the point the domestic politics that effect any countries ability to act in the international sphere are typically highly complex, "mandate" to govern or not . Personally, I think if the US was acting intelligently we'd treat Iran with greater respect and face them with much more sobriety and honesty --see Robert Baer's gripping, "The Devil We Know". Obviously, that's not about to happen anytime soon to our detriment.
Finally, the US government has lost tremendous amounts of standing particularly over the last 8 years. What country is likely to trust out word these days, Obama's presidency not excepted?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2009 @ 10:34am
Another Monday appeasement posting by Nichols in which he advocates for slamming an ally while surrendering to the terrorists in Tehran Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:28am |
Put on your glasses, Anti....this is a Dreyfuss article.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 10:35am
"any country's".....oops
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2009 @ 10:35am
Another Monday appeasement posting by Nichols in which he advocates for slamming an ally while surrendering to the terrorists in Tehran
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:28am
Sorry, correction, Dreyfuss, not Nichols. I have Nichols and his idiotic post on my mind.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:36am
Nichols, Dreyfuss......same thing, to Hapless and the "Reverend".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2009 @ 10:37am
I'm out, back later maybe.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2009 @ 10:37am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:28am
Larry, maybe you...as someone who revers Netanyahu nearly as much as you rever Reagan ...atleast more than that carpenter from Nazareth...
given Iran's "imminent threat"....when will Bibi launch the F-16s? Christmas? Groundhog's Day?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 11:48am
In order to successfully negotiate with Iran, one needs a functional government that has the Iranian people's mandate with which to negotiate.
Seen one of those in Tehran lately?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 08:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
And speaking of which....happy anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, folks!
Posted by snowball777 at 11/09/2009 @ 09:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
hmmmmmm............
"Functional governments" - like Zardari, Maliki, Karzai, Abbas, Mubarak for instance?
What was that about Occam's Razor?
First, you nation build (i.e., install your puppet government) and then you negotiate agreements with your puppet.
Is there an easier way?
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:28am
Larry, maybe you...as someone who revers Netanyahu nearly as much as you rever Reagan ...atleast more than that carpenter from Nazareth...
given Iran's "imminent threat"....when will Bibi launch the F-16s? Christmas? Groundhog's Day?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2009 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
Maybe he's waiting for the ok from the "international community"--you know, like so many around here like to use when it suits THEM to conduct the run-up to war--
otherwise, the U.N. is a "half-circle jerk", buncha "socialists", etc....
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 1:13pm
Another demonstration of the "goodness" of Iran
Iran to charge 3 American hikers with espionage, says prosecutor
Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- Iran is charging three American hikers with espionage, a Tehran prosecutor said Monday.
The three Americans have been detained since July 31 on charges of illegally crossing the border from Iraqi Kurdistan into Iran. Their family and friends say it was an innocent mistake
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/09/iran.hikers/index.html
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:23pm
Auntieshithead,
Once again you soil a perfectly good discussion with the shit from your mouth. Yes, please make a sensible life style choice and leave this cruel world behind.
Posted by atilla at 11/09/2009 @ 1:25pm
Now we have at least one answer from this disasterous administration; it IS possible for the Obamanation and Demoncrats to appear to be greater fools than they have proven to be for some time now concerning a middle eastern strategy involving Iran!
Iran continues to develop and buy more formidable long range missles and are proceeding beyond developing nuclear power for electric generation to developing nuclear weapons capabilities. They know just how impotent the new powers in D.C. are to stop their progress.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:33pm
If the US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency, then Israel better be just as transparent. Demonizing and warmongering Iran to protect Israel is wrong. The Iranian 'issue' is 100% Israeli. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that the Iranians have the right to a peaceful nuclear program in their country: 1) They are signatories to the NPT, a treaty respected by the United Nations, itself an organization the US must respect. The NPT gives the Iranians an internationally regarded right to a program. 2) It is completely unacceptable that the US or Israel attempt to dictate to Iran (or any nation) the basic parameters of Iran's energy program. Iran has a basic right to decide its own domestic programs and to utilize natural resources found within its own boundaries. Or what's next, then? The Israelis are bothered that Iran processes iron ore into steel, from which it can fashion conventional weapons, so Iran cannot process iron upon threat of "crippling sanctions"? Iran cannot utilize its own water resources, as the Israelis believe that Iranians with water might be a threat to them? The US administration must clearly and openly respect Iran's right to a nuclear program as outlined by the NPT. The concession that the Iranians made to process uranium outside of their boundaries is just that--a concession--and must be respected as the Iranians going out of their way to appease Israel and her US foil. For the US administration to simply declare that the Iranians have no right to decide their own energy program and utilize their own natural resources would be for the US to declare that even the most serious international treaties, laws and conventions are irrelevant when we deem them politically inconvenient. It is telling that President Ford, in 19
Posted by Betz55 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:03pm
Another demonstration of the "goodness" of Iran
Iran to charge 3 American hikers with espionage, says prosecutor
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:23pm
Yeah Larry, if only Iran came up with their very own Patriot Act, then it woudl be fine and dandy to capture anyone they like and detain them without charge like we do in the good ol US of A.
Posted by Shingo at 11/09/2009 @ 6:25pm
Iran continues to develop and buy more formidable long range missles and are proceeding beyond developing nuclear power for electric generation to developing nuclear weapons capabilities.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:33pm
Really?
I must have missed the US intelligence and IAEA reports which said this. woudl you be so kind as to provide links to those reports BigPasture?
Posted by Shingo at 11/09/2009 @ 6:28pm
Posted by Betz55 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:03pm
Why on earth should we respect the UN? We should get out of the UN and politely ask them to relocate.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:28pm
Why on earth should we respect the UN? We should get out of the UN and politely ask them to relocate.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:28pm
Sure, and same goes for NATO.
Posted by Shingo at 11/09/2009 @ 6:35pm
Another Monday appeasement posting by Nichols in which he advocates for slamming an ally while surrendering to the terrorists in Tehran
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:28am
Poor Larry is sad because there is a danger we might be running out of enemies.
Posted by Shingo at 11/09/2009 @ 6:59pm
Another Monday appeasement posting by Nichols in which he advocates for slamming an ally while surrendering to the terrorists in Tehran
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 10:28am
Poor Larry is sad because there is a danger we might be running out of enemies.
Posted by Shingo at 11/09/2009 @ 7:11pm
"The Israelis are bothered that Iran processes iron ore into steel, from which it can fashion conventional weapons, so Iran cannot process iron upon threat of "crippling sanctions"..."
Actually, I believe that Israelis are bothered by repeated statements made by the Iranian leadership calling for Israel to be destroyed while at the same time that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. I doubt that Israel is concerned about iron and steel.
Posted by YM at 11/09/2009 @ 7:30pm
Posted by Betz55 at 11/09/2009 @ 6:03pm
Why on earth should we respect the UN? We should get out of the UN and politely ask them to relocate.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 6:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And stop using the violation of U.N. resolutions/sanctions/mandates to take U.S. troops to war.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/09/2009 @ 7:41pm
It looks like whatever Iran is doing is fine with Mr. Dreyfuss (and of course whatever Israel is doing is NOT fine with Mr. Dreyfuss). America is doing wrong in most cases unless it sucks up to Iran or Hamas. The question: Why would America listen to a guy who hates it and loves its enemies (or do Nation's readers consider Iran America's friend?) And why would Israel listen to the US if American president does what Mr. Dreyfuss suggests? One can also wonder when will ambassador Davies understand how Iranian system works – when it drops a nuke on Israel? Mr. Dreyfuss and all his ilk will be happy but normal people will not be because they would understand that they would be next.
I can repeat that whatever Ahmadinejad's "defense" of this agreement was that Mr. Dreyfuss was referring to was actually bragging about finally having the West do what Iran wants. I can repeat that Mr. Dreyfuss is afraid to defend his views against anyone who possesses minimal knowledge and caters to nuts like rykart and smash. I can repeat that whoever loves what Mr. Dreyfuss writes doesn't have any ability to discuss issues intelligently but that is a waste of time if I address Nation's readers.
Posted by teasethegeese at 11/09/2009 @ 9:56pm
It looks like whatever Iran is doing is fine with Mr. Dreyfuss (and of course whatever Israel is doing is NOT fine with Mr. Dreyfuss). Posted by teasethegeese at 11/09/2009 @ 9:56pm
There are some sound reasons for that: 1.Iran is a signatory tot he NPT and is not producing nukes. 2.Iran is not threatening Israel, while Israel is openly threatening to attack Iran 3.Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and does have nukes.
America is doing wrong, because: 1. as a signatory to the NPT, it is obliged to assist Iran develop it's nuclear power industry, or at the very least, not obstruct it. 2. while Iran is a signatory to the NPT, America is insisting that Iran should incur all the liabilities of the NPT, but none of the benefits. 3. in spite of the IAEA and 16 US intelligence agencies reporting there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, they are accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program. 4. it supports terrorist groups like the MEK and Jundulla, who are committing terrorist attacks in Tehran, while accusing Iran of being a state sponsor of terror.
So long as Israel continues to receive massive aid and free arms from the US, as well as a guarantee of protection, Israel is obliged to listen to the US. Israel are only talking tough becasue they know they can hide behind the US when things get nasty. If Israel want to stop taking our money and weapons and fend for themselves, then they are free to do what they like, so long as they face the consequences alone.
Iran has no nukes to drop on Israel and not making nukes to drop on Israel.
So far, you have demonstrated profound ignorance on this matter so it would be advisable that you not accuse Dreyfuss of being afraid to defend his views against anyone. Get educated.
Posted by Shingo at 11/09/2009 @ 10:49pm
The problem with getting a deal with Iran is that they ARE allowed under the IAEA system to enrich uranium and process it for use in a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes such as meeting their energy needs. It is not widely reported in the West, but Iran actually RATIONS gasoline because of limited refining capacity.
Do we single out "Muslim" countries for "different" treatment under the IAEA? And why do we ignore the nuclear activity of countries such as Israel that go well beyond what Iran has done, who fail to allow inspectors free reign in their country, and even refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty?
A "comprehensive" approach to nuclear control is needed throughout the Middle East and around the world that is "consistent and not arbitrary" and that does not discriminate against nations because they are not Christian or Jewish-dominated.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2009 @ 12:09am
Now to sit back and listen to the Islamic Jihadist supporting leftist squeal like pigs over the Obamanation sending 30,000 more American servicemen to Afghanistan. Should be a great show!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 12:49am
Now to sit back and listen to the Islamic Jihadist supporting leftist squeal like pigs over the Obamanation sending 30,000 more American servicemen to Afghanistan. Should be a great show!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 12:49am
Isn't it funny how the wingnut teabaggers even criticize Obama when his policies are identical to Bush's? Even if Obama said he'd get rid of income tax and bomb Iran back to the stone age, the dead enders here would still accuse him of fiscal irresponsibility and not being strong enough on foreign policy.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 01:17am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/09/2009 @ 1:23pm </i>
Food for thought: how many people just "accidentally" hike into Iran? As much as I don't trust the Iranian regime...isn't this just a LITTLE bit suspicious?
Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 07:01am
Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 07:01am |
From the "what a small world" department...one of the 'hikers', the one that stayed behind, dated my wife while she was in HS.
I seriously doubt they were merely on vacation.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by BigPasture at 11/09/2009 @ 3:33pm |
"Iran continues to develop and buy more formidable long range missles..."
Yeah, I hear Adobe just came out with Creative Suite 5...that should ramp up their 'production' considerably.
"...and are proceeding beyond developing nuclear power for electric generation to developing nuclear weapons capabilities."
So you can point out the refinement centers and centrifuges...are they "N, S, E, and W" of Tehran?
"They know just how impotent the new powers in D.C. are to stop their progress."
From missiles to impotency in one post...projecting?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 08:07am
Hasan--a terrorist muslim,a palestinian-Town Cryer shouts! Three Hikers--little kids on a field hiking--not a word about-Zionist at heart
Posted by geo1671 at 11/10/2009 @ 08:17am
Posted by geo1671 at 11/10/2009 @ 08:17am |
Uh huh...right.
"Little Kids"...who are in their 30s...and who write books...
http://www.eberhardtpress.org/catalog/suffled.php
The hikers were warned, explicitly, by an Iraqi cabdriver that the place they were planning to hike was near the Iranian border the day before.
Personal responsibility?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 08:34am
The hikers were warned, explicitly, by an Iraqi cabdriver that the place they were planning to hike was near the Iranian border the day before.
Personal responsibility?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 08:34am
Does that mean that they should be tried as spies and possibly executed?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 08:59am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 08:59am |
That's not up to you or me...is it?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 09:27am
Just another manufactured conflict, designed by and for the neocons, zionists, judeo-christian 'right' or whatever you want to call them. "Mutually assured destruction" was the only thing that saved the planet 30 years ago, and it can work again. It's a race against time, though..... Iran's nuclear scientists vs. the Israeli propaganda machine. Personally, I hope Iran gets all the nukes it needs to send Israel back to hell. That's probably the only thing that will save us...... mutually assured destruction of both sides.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/10/2009 @ 11:01am
Israel is smart enough to keep away World's attention from the Goldstone report. They are effectively using the Iran issue for this purpose.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/10/2009 @ 11:36am
The NYT today has an article quoting US officials as saying that Iran has ignored Obama's counter-offer, and it does not appear that Iran is willing to reach any kind of agreement since it retracted its original offer. Whether Iran has a right to enrich uranium is a separate issue. And I know the NYT is held in disrepute as a Zionist collaborator by many of you here. Nonetheless, to me it says that negotiations are not making any progress and appeare to be futile.
Posted by gren at 11/10/2009 @ 12:17pm
What about Indian,Israeli,North Korean and Pakistani nukes?
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:26pm
Dastu, may I first just compliment you for de-Caps Locking your posts. Much nicer to read.
Second, obviously few care about nuclear proliferation...just don't want "uncontrolled states" having them. Even North Korea is under the thumb of the Chinese....they do anything "funny" and they lose their last lifeline of support.
India is sane....Israel is on our side and wouldn't use a nuke unless Jordanian/Egyptian/Syrian troops were moving onto Tel Aviv....and we now have Pakistan's pecker in our pocket (to quote LBJ).
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 12:36pm
I hope Iran gets all the nukes it needs to send Israel back to hell. That's probably the only thing that will save us...... mutually assured destruction of both sides.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/10/2009 @ 11:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
Read "Revelations" in the Holy Bible to see how that would play out! You know you can be "saved" now before its to late, you don't have to wait!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:56pm
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:56pm
Rio...please quote the Scripture - St.. Paul's Epistle to Titus 3:2.
Given your "knowledge" of the Bible.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 2:03pm
It seems to be the only verse in your bible mAsK so you must have studied it thoughly to condense everything down to just that?! By the way what do you interput as the context of its usage?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 4:23pm
Read "Revelations" in the Holy Bible to see how that would play out! You know you can be "saved" now before its to late, you don't have to wait!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:56pm
Nah, if I want to read fiction, I'll stick to Harry Potter.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 4:32pm
The NYT today has an article quoting US officials as saying that Iran has ignored Obama's counter-offer, and it does not appear that Iran is willing to reach any kind of agreement since it retracted its original offer.
Posted by gren at 11/10/2009 @ 12:17pm
if the article is from Broad and Sanger, I'd ignore it.
First of all, Obama has not made any counter offer. He provided a proposal and Clinton has stated that it is not subject to change. that's not negotiation of any king, it's an ultimatum.
In other words, it is Clinton at least, who is refusing to negotiate.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 4:35pm
Does that mean that they should be tried as spies and possibly executed?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 08:59am
Of course not, but if Arab/Muslims were caught crossing our borders legally, we wouldn't be throwing them a cocktail party.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 4:42pm
I can understand that! From all you've posted Shingo it appears that real sourse of power for Harry Potter's imaginairy world has you firmly in his grasp allowing you to blindly deny the truth, the light, and the way. A pitiful thing indeed. As for the Holy Bible, try it, you'll like it!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 4:44pm
I can understand that! From all you've posted Shingo it appears that real sourse of power for Harry Potter's imaginairy world has you firmly in his grasp allowing you to blindly deny the truth, the light, and the way. A pitiful thing indeed. As for the Holy Bible, try it, you'll like it!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 4:44pm
I have read the Bible and if you ask me, JK Rowling has got a firmer grasp on reality than the fiction writers who penned the Bible.
You are on the road to perpetual disappointment if you believe a delusional work of fiction will deliver you the truth, the light, and the way.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 4:56pm
Speaking of reality BigPasture, I am still waiting for the intelligence report and or IAEA report that supports your statement that Iran are "developing nuclear weapons capabilities."
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:02pm
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So you tell us why they need the enrichment process for weapons grade fissionable material?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:20pm
So you tell us why they need the enrichment process for weapons grade fissionable material?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:20pm
They don't, which is why they are not enriching to weapons grade fissionable material, nor do they have an enrichment process for weapons grade fissionable material.
Do you want to tell me where you picked up that BS, or did you simply make it up?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:26pm
If we invaded Iran, we would be greeted as liberators.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:42pm
Religion-- all religion, not just the mad cult of Islam-- is illogical, invalid, inhuman, and immoral.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:44pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 08:07am Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:26pm
Yeah...answer the question(s), Rio!
Where's this 'enrichment' of fissile materials going to take place?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:46pm
I will repeat what I've said before:
We should have overthrown the government of Iran in 1979. If we had, thousands of American lives would have been saved and 9/11 never would have happened. The Soviets would never have invaded Afghanistan as we occupied its neighbor, the Taliban would never have come to power, and Iran would never have unilaterally invaded Iraq without provocation. Thousands of Israelis would have been saved, as would the lives of the 175,000 Iranians killed by the current mad regime. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and virtually all terrorist organizations would have been technologically, militarily, and financially crippled before they ever got started. International terrorism would have lost its most important sponsor even as it was just starting out.
We must invade Iran now. It supports, arms, trains, and funds AQ and the Taliban. It has killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is planning on invading Bahrain. It will start a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East that will increase the chances of a nuclear terror strike on America while decreasing our ability to pinpoint the state responsible if such were to occur. It is waging a proxy war on us every day. It has threatened genocide against Israel. It was involved in 9/11. It chants "Death to America!" every Friday night.
Not invading Iran now may have consequences as catastrophic as the consequences we've suffered for not invading Iran three decades ago.
An invasion of Iran in 1979 would have saved millions of lives, including the 1,000,000 killed by Iran's illegal unilateral aggression against Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:48pm
If we invaded Iran, we would be greeted as liberators.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:42pm
Hahahahaha hahaha, just like Iraq right?
Hahhaha
Of course, we couldn't invade Iran if we wanted to.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:54pm
Right now, Iran is killing Americans in Afghanistan via assassins, and primarily, by arming and training the Taliban with explosives. It is supporting AQ, including senior AQ terrorists, and is training them in flying airplanes into buildings and using explosives against America.
The Afghan-Pakistan border is now a hotbed of jihadist training camps. Many terrorist plots, like the plot to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic, trace back to that part of the world. We must eliminate this threat from the Taliban with minimal American casualties. This means giving up on nation-building in Afghanistan, obliterating the Taliban with overwhelming force from the air, and crippling the jihad by destroying Iran's current government.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:56pm
"Of course, we couldn't invade Iran if we wanted to."
Oh yes we could-- and should immediately.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:57pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:48pm
What you said before is complete rubbish, so you needn't have bothered.
Iran have not killed thousands of Americans. Iran had no involvement in 911. The Soviets had no desire to invade and occupy Iran. Iran never invaded Iraq but were provoked by Iraq starting a war. Thousands of Israelis have not died, thus there were none to be saved. Iran has killed less Iranians than the Shah. Israrl created Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. Most terrorist organizations are technologically, militarily, and financially supported by our ally, Saudi Arabia. We haven't got a hope of invading Iran, now or ever. The strange thing rightwingnutcase, is that before your recent mental breakdown, you agreed that an invasion was a bad idea an not an option. We could barely manage an invasion of Iraq, which a third of the size and much weaker militarily, and that was when our military was at near full strength, Iran has never supported AQ and is an arch enemy of the Taliban. Iran has not killed any American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is not planning any invasion anywhere. Iran is not starting any nuclear arms race. Iran is no waging any proxy war on us. Iran has never threatened genocide against Israel. Again, Iran had zero involvement in 9/11. Iran did not chant "Death to America!" last Friday night. As most Pentagon generals agree, invading Iran is not an option would have catastrophic consequences.
1 million lives would have been saved had we not supported Saddam unilateral aggression against Iran.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:06pm
Oh yes we could-- and should immediately.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:57pm
No we can't and we shouldn't. Admiral Mullens just told us it woudl be a disaster.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:07pm
There are no assassinskilling Americans. America on the other hand, is supporting Al Qaeda affiliated Jundulla who are carrying our suicide bombings in Tehran.
Iran never supported AQ or any senior AQ terrorists other than capturing them and offering to hand them over to us. The only state training them in flying airplanes into buildings and using explosives against America were Americans.
The Taliban are not invoved in any terrorist plots, let alone plots to blow up airliners crossing the Atlantic.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:12pm
This means giving up on nation-building in Afghanistan, obliterating the Taliban with overwhelming force from the air, and crippling the jihad by destroying Iran's current government.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:56pm
So all that hot air about improving the lives of people in Afghanistan was just BS right? You never gave a crap about the civilians. Just kill them all.
I knew deep down you were a derranged psychopath.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:14pm
1. According to John Mearsheimer, Iran threatened Iraq, carried out terrorism against Iraq, tried to assassinate members of Saddam's regime, and planned on eventually assassinating Saddam. Saddam invaded a small part of Iran in 1980 to counter this aggression. He withdrew in 1983. Iran then invaded Iraq using suicidal human wave attacks. It refused any peace deal until 1988, when the UN finally got Iran to surrender. 2. The notion that Iraq attacked Iran was one of the many lies the Bush administration insinuated to support its pointless war in Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:16pm
"Most terrorist organizations are technologically, militarily, and financially supported by our ally, Saudi Arabia."
As I see it, Bush got us bogged down in a senseless welfare mission in Afghanistan when he should have destroyed the Taliban and then moved on to Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Worse, Bush betrayed America in an even more illogical welfare mission in Iraq that made him a worse killer of Americans than the 9/11 hijackers.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:21pm
"The only state training them in flying airplanes into buildings and using explosives against America were Americans."
So 9/11 was secretly an inside job?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:23pm
"No we can't"
We're America, Shingo. We can do just about anything we want to.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:24pm
In fact, war with Iran would be a cakewalk.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:25pm
According to John Mearsheimer, Iran threatened Iraq, carried out terrorism against Iraq, tried to assassinate members of Saddam's regime, and planned on eventually assassinating Saddam.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
John Mearsheimer never said anythign of the kind.
Saddam withdrew back to the Iran border in 1983, for tactical reasons. He never called for a ceasfire or end to the war. In 1983, the US helped Saddam escalate the war.
Saddam has also been accused on carrying out terrorism against Iran, assassinate members of Tehran leadership regime.
Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 and the war lasted a decade.
Iran NEVER invaded Iraq with using suicidal human wave attacks or any other means.
Neither Iran nor Iran agreed to a peace deal until 1988.
Iraq's attacked on Iran is a matter of record and has been used by supporters of the war to justify the US invasion fo Iraq, but I am pleased that you acknowledge that the Bush administration lied us into the war.
Baby steps.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:26pm
"Saddam decided to withdraw his armed forces completely from Iran, deploying them along the international border between Iraq and Iran.[28] Efraim Karsh states that Saddam made this choice because the Iraqi leader believed that his army was now too demoralised and damaged to hold onto any territory in Iran, and that Iran could be successfully resisted through a line of defence on Iraqi land near the border.[28] Using the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 6 June 1982 as a pretext for a withdrawal, Saddam suggested to Iran that it should stop fighting and send its troops to assist the Palestinians fighting in Lebanon, an offer which was refused.[28] The withdrawal began on 20 June, and was completed by 30 June.[28] Karsh describes Saddam's decision to withdraw his forces from Iran as "one of his wisest strategic moves during the war".[28]
On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi declared to "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem".[28] This matched a comment made by Khomeini on the issue of a truce with Iraq: "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."[34]"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:30pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:30pm
"Saddam decided to withdraw his armed forces completely from Iran, deploying them along the international border between Iraq and Iran."
Irrelevant. That's was a strategic move, not an act of surrender or call for an end to the war. Efraim Karsh confirms that Saddam made this choice to resisted through a line of defence on Iraqi. Saddam had started the war and refused to surrender or admit defeat.
"On 21 June, Khomeini indicated that Iran would invade Iraq shortly, and on 22 June"
Iran never ended up invading Iraq.
Your own cut and paste exposed your lies.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:37pm
In fact, war with Iran would be a cakewalk.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:25pm
Only if you adhere to an incredibly liberal definition of the word cakewalk. If we invaded Iran they could very easily cut our lines of communication and mine the straits of Hormuz. This isn't like pre- invasion Iraq where we were debating invading a country with a decimated army. There is still a fair degree of support for the regime (at least on the nuclear issue) and the people will still rally around the regime if attacked.
Posted by nkurland at 11/10/2009 @ 7:42pm
"Saddam made this choice to resisted through a line of defence on Iraqi"
Right, Saddam defended himself from the Iranian war criminals who killed more people than died in Rwanda, so it's his fault they attacked him illegally and unilaterally.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:45pm
We could destroy the entire Iranian government from the air without a single American casualty, and then occupy Iran.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:47pm
Posted by nkurland at 11/10/2009 @ 7:42pm
I think your wasting your time if you're trying to use reason and logic. It appears that rightwingnutcase has suffered a brain explosion ever since he stared expressing his theories about the inferiority of black people. I suspect it started a chain reaction and unleashed a flood gate that he was trying to suppress for quite some time.
Since then, he's given up any desire to post anything sensible or remotely connected to reality.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:53pm
I never said blacks were inferior. I simply pointed out that Jews and East Asians do better on IQ tests and are on average more successful than other groups.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:56pm
I never said blacks were inferior. I simply pointed out that Jews and East Asians do better on IQ tests and are on average more successful than other groups.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:56pm
Of course you did. You said that Ashkenazi Jews and Asians were superior and that black people and Arabs were inferior.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:58pm
Iran is the most serious threat to America since Axis Japan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:02pm
FYI
This was posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:00pm.....
An Inconvenient Truth:
East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are superior to all other groups in their performance in all areas save for athletics. Blacks are inferior to all other groups in their performance in all areas save for athletics.
This can only mean one of three things:
a) Non-East Asians and non-Ashkenazi Jews are victims of racist oppression by the evil white man. b) Blacks are genetically the least evolved humans; East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are genetically the most evolved humans. c) Blacks are culturally the least evolved humans; East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are culturally the most evolved humans.
I hope it's option c, and I think we all know answer a is untrue.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/01/2009 @ 9:00pm
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:03pm
Iran is the most serious threat to America since Axis Japan.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:02pm
Iran is no threat whatsoever. They have no way of threatening America militarily, politically or financially,
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:06pm
On 9/11, terrorists trained, harbored, and transported abroad by Iran killed more people than died on Pearl Harbor.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:08pm
On 9/11, terrorists trained, harbored, and transported abroad by Iran killed more people than died on Pearl Harbor.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:08pm
No, none of the 9/11 terrorists trained, harbored, and transported abroad by Iran. They came from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and were allowed to live freely in Germany and the US, where they receive all their training.
Read the 911 Commission Report. You'll find there is no suggestion of any Iranian involvement.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:29pm
In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report is my source. It verified my claims, then recommended an independent investigation into whether Iran actually knew the details of the 9/11 plot:
"We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.
After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11. We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.[13]"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:41pm
"Zakeri claimed that he met with a CIA officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, in July 2001 and provided warning of the 9/11 attacks. The CIA acknowledged the meeting, then claimed Zakeri had provided no credible evidence of a terrorist plot against the United States. But German prosecutors and the German intelligence agencies who have interviewed Zakeri don't appear to share that assessment. Germany's counterespionage service, the Bundeskriminalamt, supplied prosecutors with a 30-page transcript of its interview with Zakeri on Jan. 21, prompting the court to halt Mzoudi's trial and expected release.
In his original interview with Insight, which was picked up by American media organizations only after Zakeri's name surfaced in the German 9/11 trial on Jan. 21, the former MOIS operative said he personally handled security at two meetings between top al-Qaeda operatives and Iranian officials held in Iran just months before the September 11 attacks."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:46pm
A careful review of what is known about this matter--even a review confined to public sources--shows that Iran has long maintained ties to al Qaeda and has assisted the group in refining its terrorist capabilities. During the years of Taliban rule, Tehran allowed al Qaeda members, including some future 9/11 hijackers, to transit its territory en route to and from Afghanistan. Nor has this support waned since the Taliban's fall. To this day, much of the surviving al Qaeda leadership is based in Iran, enjoying the protection of the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:52pm
In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report is my source. It verified my claims, then recommended an independent investigation into whether Iran actually knew the details of the 9/11 plot:
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:41pm
But nothing you cite supports you claim in any way, and contradicts you.
The closest it comes is to suggest "further investigation by the U.S. government". It alludes to possible co-operation without giving any details.
German prosecutors have failed to provide any evidence of Iranian connection to 911 either.
It's all in your imagination and never has the US government accused Iran of any involvement in 911.
Case close.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:58pm
A careful review of what is known about this matter--even a review confined to public sources--shows that Iran has long maintained ties to al Qaeda and has assisted the group in refining its terrorist capabilities. D
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 8:52pm
Wrong, there are no ties and no evidence of ties.
Any remote understanding of the region demonstrates that Iran and Al Qaeda were arch enemies.
The Taliban murdered 10 Iranian political leaders, which almost drove Iran to declare war with the Taliban.
There is no evidence that Tehran allowed al Qaeda members to transit its territory en route to and from Afghanistan. This is based on misinformation about passports being stamped, which is not a practice Iran has ever implemented.
There are no al Qaeda leader based in Iran. In fact, teh Al Qaeda group, Jundulla, recently carried out a suicide ombibg mission in Tehran. The US is supporting Jundulla.
Bin Laden has condemned Tehran and stated his greatest aim is to start a war between teh US and Iran. You acknowledged this a while ago.
If you need any further explanation as to the realities of region, feel free to ask. You repeatedly demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:12pm
I found an interesting reports that Bin Laden had sneaked into Iran, but that he was sheltered by the Mujahideen-i-Khalq, a group with strong Iraqi links and which is outlawed as a terrorist organization by the United States.
The MEK are arch enemies of the Iranina leadership and were supported and sheltered by Saddam. Even more interesting is that the US has been supporting the MEK.
So to summarize, it is he US, not Iran that supports Al Qaeda affiliated johadist networks and groups that support Al Qaeda.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:28pm
Actually, Iran harbors over 384 AQ or AQ-affiliated terrorists who are plotting future attacks on America, according to a 2006 article from the Weekly Standard.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 9:31pm
Face it; Iran currently threatens the lives and freedoms of Americans. As such, we should at least be arming the Iranian resistance. At most, we could destroy the Iranian regime with zero US casualties, and would have no obligation to occupy Iran to set up a new government, though it would probably be in our interest to do so. The best bet would be to have our agents work with the opposition leaders to set up a coalition government once the theocratic regime falls, and then leave it to them to make a transition to democracy.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 9:38pm
The simple fact is that Afghanistan and Iran were the countries we should have liberated after 9/11. Bush mismanaged the first war and fought the second not with the threatening country but with its weak secular neighbor.
The Iraq war has been a moral crime and a tragedy that should have been avoided. Bush killed more Americans by sending them off to Iraq than died on 9/11.
People like Hitchens who advocate endless self-sacrificial welfare wars costing thousands of American lives wherein Americans are offered up to save people in foreign countries from oppression show such callousness towards American casualties that it has become increasingly clear to me that the wars they advocate have nothing to do with defending American lives.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 9:57pm
Actually, Iran harbors over 384 AQ or AQ-affiliated terrorists who are plotting future attacks on America, according to a 2006 article from the Weekly Standard.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 9:31pm
I would ask you for a source to prove that, but I know you don't have one, so why bother.
The only Al Qaeda terrorists in Iran as in prison cells or being executed.
The Weekly Standard is a discredited Neocon propaganda rag.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:00pm
Face it; Iran currently threatens the lives and freedoms of Americans.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 9:38pm
How could Iran possibly threaten the lives and freedoms of Americans? It has no military capability to attack us, let alone invade.
Given that Iran is no possible threat, the posts is complete rubbish.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:02pm
The government of Iran has been involved in the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:14pm
The simple fact is that Afghanistan and Iran were the countries we should have liberated after 9/11.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 9:57pm
We woudl have failed if we tried to liberate Iran. We already failed in Iraq.
I am tryuly confused rightwingnutcase. For moths you have been defending the Iraq war as just and necessary, but now you describe it as a moral crime and a tragedy that should have been avoided.
What caused this sudden reversal?
So if it is clear to you that the wars the neocons advocate have nothing to do with defending American lives, why are you advocating a war with Iran?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:15pm
"I am tryuly confused rightwingnutcase. For moths you have been defending the Iraq war as just and necessary, but now you describe it as a moral crime and a tragedy that should have been avoided."
As I said, I've undergone an ideological conversion.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:19pm
The government of Iran has been involved in the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:14pm
Where? Who have they killed?
Wasn't the US government involved in the deaths of thousands of Iranians, having backed Saddam in the war he started with Iran?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:21pm
"So if it is clear to you that the wars the neocons advocate have nothing to do with defending American lives, why are you advocating a war with Iran?"
I've summed it up already as follows:
"Iran currently threatens the lives and freedoms of Americans. As such, we should at least be arming the Iranian resistance. At most, we could destroy the Iranian regime with zero US casualties, and would have no obligation to occupy Iran to set up a new government, though it would probably be in our interest to do so. The best bet would be to have our agents work with the opposition leaders to set up a coalition government once the theocratic regime falls, and then leave it to them to make a transition to democracy."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:21pm
Saddam did NOT start the Iran-Iraq war.
You're buying into neocon propaganda.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:22pm
I've summed it up already as follows:
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:21pm
And I demonstrated that your arguments are wrong. Iran is in no position to threaten any American lives and even less able to threaten American freedoms.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:26pm
Saddam did NOT start the Iran-Iraq war.
You're buying into neocon propaganda.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:22pm
You have got to be joking!! You are flip flopping so insanely you are giving me whiplash.
Tell me rightwingnutcase, as you the same rightwingnutcase that spent months defending the invasion of Iraq or someone else, using his ID?
You yourself just admitted that Iraq invaded Iran. An invasion is an act of war, thus Ira started it.
That is not neocon propaganda. The neocons want to invade Iran just like you do.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:28pm
I don't want to invade Iran; I want to bomb the hell out of it.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:31pm
Shingo – you get educated and stop repeating lies and spins. Iran is a signatory to NPT but you DON'T know if it produces nukes or not. Even such an idiotic supporter of Iran as AlBaradei can't say for sure which means that there is quite realistic evidence that Iran DOES strive to have nukes. Iran was the first to start threatening Israel; in fact, it doesn't even recognize its existence. Israel is not a signatory to NPT but, even if it does have nukes (which, again, you don't know), it hasn't used them so far so the world is safe from Israel (I guess no one doubts that and that's why Arabs are more afraid of Iran than Israel). So who demonstrated ignorance and lack of reason? I guess it's you, Shingo.
Posted by teasethegeese at 11/10/2009 @ 10:32pm
The neocons are just soft Commies who advocate endless worldwide revolution from above.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:35pm
"And I demonstrated that your arguments are wrong. Iran is in no position to threaten any American lives and even less able to threaten American freedoms."
The RIGHT to life is a freedom.
Here, Shingo implies that there IS some minor threat to American lives from Iran.
We can eliminate that threat without any American deaths.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:39pm
I don't want to invade Iran; I want to bomb the hell out of it.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:31pm
So do the neocons.
So you want to slaughter millions of Iranians. Why?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:45pm
"So you want to slaughter millions of Iranians."
Not at all. Pure fantasy on your part.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:50pm
teasethegeese,
Before you stumble into a debate like a buffoon about something you know nothing about, you'd better get your facts straight,.
I have a background in nuclear engineering and wrotes of reports for IAEA, so don't bother telling me what I know.
1. The IAEA has state that they can conclude with 100% certainty that no uranium is being diverted, so it follows that Iran are not producing nukes. Logic 101.
2. Not only the IAEA but 16 US intelligence agencies continue to verify that there is NO evidence, realistic or otherwise, that Iran is striving to have nukes.
3. Iran has NEVER threatened Israel. The lie was debunked years ago. Get your talking points up to scratch.
4. Whether is recognizes Israel is irrelevant. They have no obligation to do so., but whether they do or otherwise is of no consequence to Israel.
5. Anyone who suggests there is any doubt Israel has nukes is an Isralei propagandist. Even Olmert has been caught admitting that Israel is a nuclear power. Mordachai Vannunu spent 18 years locked up for exposing Israel's nuclear weapons program.
6. As Moshe Dayan admitted, Israel did consider using nukes in teh 1973 war with Egypt, so Israel is more mvolatile and trigger happy than you are willign to admit.
So in answer to your question, who demonstrated ignorance and lack of reason? You might want to rethink your answer you ignoramus.
PS. If you have any question, I would be happy to alleviate your ignorance.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:55pm
The RIGHT to life is a freedom.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:39pm
Iran has no possible way to threaten either of these.
Iran is no threat in any way.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:58pm
Not at all. Pure fantasy on your part.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 10:50pm
Bombing he hell out of Iran, with a population of 60 million, will slaughter many of them.
You never answered my questions rightwingnutcase.
Are you the same rightwingnutcase that was a huge supporter of the Iraq invasion and what caused the sudden flip flop from you?
Are you the same rightwingnutcase that opposed an attack on Iran and what caused the sudden flip flop from you?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 11:02pm
"Are you the same rightwingnutcase that was a huge supporter of the Iraq invasion"
Yes.
"Are you the same rightwingnutcase that opposed an attack on Iran"
Yes.
"and what caused the sudden flip flop from you?"
The Objective Standard.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 11:05pm
The Objective Standard.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 11:05pm
Good for you.
Why don't you read the articel entitled:
Exposing Anti-Muslim "Conspiracies"?
That might get you in touch with reality.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09pm
"That might get you in touch with reality."
There's probably no hope for that now, Shingo.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 11:11pm
Rightwingnutcase where do you come up with all your apocalyptic and alarmist bs...you either live in a cave or you have a warped view of the world to advocate such nonsense.
Posted by Aria at 11/10/2009 @ 11:20pm
"Rightwingnutcase where do you come up with all your apocalyptic and alarmist bs"
I'm fed talking points by the Israel lobby and then paid to repeat them over and over as a propaganda messenger by Bill Kristol.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/11/2009 @ 12:24am
So you tell us why they need the enrichment process for weapons grade fissionable material? BP
They don't, which is why they are not enriching to weapons grade fissionable material, nor do they have an enrichment process for weapons grade fissionable material. Do you want to tell me where you picked up that BS, or did you simply make it up?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You must be Iran propoganda envoy Shingo! Try every major news media in the world!
"What do we know about the Qom facility? Western intelligence has been monitoring the construction of the underground facility for years, according to the Obama administration. It is designed to hold about 3,000 gas centrifuges. The West argues that the 3,000 centrifuges are too few to produce a significant amount of fuel for generating electricity but could produce enough highly concentrated uranium to make one or two bombs a year."
"What is the status of Iran's nuclear program? In addition to enriching uranium, a nuclear weapons program includes developing a warhead and building a missile to deliver the weapon. According to Western intelligence agencies, Iran is one to five years away from developing nuclear capability, though it is unclear whether the Islamic Republic has even decided to build a weapon. U.S. intelligence believes that Iran is working on a ballistic missile that could carry a nuclear warhead but that those efforts have slowed. Partly because of that, the United States recently backed out of an agreement for a missile shield in Eastern Europe."
A heavy-water plant is being built in Arak but is not expected to have a reactor vessel until 2011. A light-water reactor is being built by the Russians in Bushehr. "
Posted by BigPasture at 11/11/2009 @ 12:46am
Okay, hold on...
"If we invaded Iran, we would be greeted as liberators."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 6:42pm
"In fact, war with Iran would be a cakewalk."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/10/2009 @ 7:25pm
This is TOO much....I think we have a "poser" on our hands. No real neo-con would echo the goofy claims of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz from 2003 in 2009 and apply them to Iran. Even their own side would be too embarassed to do that.
This has got to be a phoney RWNC, like the phoney antisocialist we had a while back.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 11:10am
The point is that war with Iran really WOULD be a cakewalk, unlike Bush's catastrophic sacrifice of thousands of Americans in Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/11/2009 @ 11:33am
The point is that war with Iran really WOULD be a cakewalk, unlike Bush's catastrophic sacrifice of thousands of Americans in Iraq.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 11/11/2009 @ 11:33am
How so?
Iran is 3 times the size with 3 times the population. Iran's military is not destroyed and in dissaray like Iraq's was. In the event of an attack, US troops in Iraq oudl come under immediate attack. Iran control the Straight of Hormuz Iran has anti ship missiles that could lay waste to our navy Iran may or may not, take delivery of Russian S300 anti aircraft missiles, which would know a lot of US planes out of the sky Last but not least, Admiral Mullen stated this week that an attack on Iran woudl be a disaster.
Posted by Shingo at 11/11/2009 @ 4:50pm
"What do we know about the Qom facility? Posted by BigPasture at 11/11/2009 @ 12:46am
Poor BigPasture – forever the village idiot who never passes up an opportunity to soil himself in public.
As al Baraedei said, Qom is nothing but a hole in the ground. That's what we know about Qom.
IAEA: We found 'nothing to worry about' at secret Iran nuke site http://tinyurl.com/y8j8cme
And don't believe the BS about Western intelligence monitoring the construction of the facility. For a start, the facility already existed, having been a former underground military facility. The Iranians simply decided to convert it to a pilot enrichment facility.
If Western intelligence had been monitoring it and considered it newsworthy, it would have rated a mention in the 2007 NIE, or more recently, when Dennis Blair (head of US intelligence) testified before the Senate in April, where he re-affirmed that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program,
Iran explained that the Qom facility was to be a pilot plant and to maintain Iran's intellectual know how on enrichment, pending an aerial bombing attack from the US and or Israel. Given that Israel have been threatening to bomb Iran for years, and were even denied permission to do so last year by George Bush, Iran's justification holds up.
Posted by Shingo at 11/11/2009 @ 5:19pm
Continued..
The theory that the 3,000 centrifuges are too few to produce fuel but could produce sufficient to produce a bomb, that fails the most basic logic test. It is estimated that Iran might have enough LEU to theoretically make a bomb by by the end of the year if they decided to enrich to HEU. In other words, using it's industrial scale facility at Natanz, it has taken Iran 3 years to produce enough LEU to theoretically produce one nuke, yet we are suppose to believe that a smaller facility is somehow more likely to produce a nuke than the much larger one?
Has anyone ever explained basic arithmetic to you?
Furthermore, Iran declared the existence of the facility to the IAEA 18 months before they were required to under the NPT. This means that: a) it is not a "secret" facility and b) that it will be under the watch of the IAEA and thus, cannot be used to produce any nukes without giving up the game.
Saying that Iran is one to five years away from developing nuclear capability, is meaningless. Western intelligence has been saying that for the better part of a decade. In fact, the numbers are closer to 6 to 8 years.
What that means is that Iran hasn't even started trying to make a nuke.
The accusations of ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear warhead are also bunk. The designs from the stolen laptop proved to be complete rubbish. The documents appear to be forgeries and Sandia national Laboratories in the US, concluding that the designs could not possibly work.
The heavy-water plant at Arak is nothing unusual. Most modern countries that don't even have nuclear power will usually have a heavy water reactor to produce medical isotopes. Light-water reactors have no possible use to producing nuclear weapons.
Posted by Shingo at 11/11/2009 @ 5:24pm
Shingo, how is your nuclear engineering background (if you actually have any) helping you in finding all this junk? The IAEA might have not found evidence that uranium is being diverted but that means nothing considering that they had no clue about secret plant Iran built and that they missed nuclear programs in North Korea and Syria. On the other hand, not diverting uranium (yet) doesn't mean anything either because Iran so far was just doing research in the area of HOW to build a bomb. There is no HARD evidence of Iran's building a bomb but, with the way IAEA operates, it may come as bomb or nuclear test itself, just like in North Korea. As I said, even AlBaradei, Iran's friend and defender, doesn't dare finishing investigation because he knows the facts but tries to hide them from us. As for the 16 US agencies you are you talking about – the only thing they said was that Iran STOPPED building a bomb, not that it never tried; you better read it rather than pretend that you know something. Now, as a UN member, Iran is obligated to accept all fellow members; instead, it constantly alludes to the end of Israel. So again, read something else but lunatic websites. As for Israel's wanting to use its (not-proven) nuclear weapons, the fact is: It didn't. And in 1973 it was under attack that threatened its existence so it had the right to do it anyway. So it looks like all your "facts" are nothing but propaganda and, obviously, logic is not your strong point either which makes me wonder again about your engineering background.
Posted by teasethegeese at 11/11/2009 @ 8:38pm
Shingo, how is your nuclear engineering background (if you actually have any) helping you in finding all this junk? Posted by teasethegeese at 11/11/2009 @ 8:38pm
It's called evidence teasethegeese. I know it hasn't caught on among the wingnut fraternity, but it's how the world outside of your hermetical sealed ideological enclosure works
The IAEA didn't miss the secret plant being built because it already existed as a military facility. Al Baradei has told us it is just a hole in the ground, with nothing to distinguish it from a production factory for dildos.
There was no nuclear programs in Syria and no one missed North Korea's plans. After all, North Klorea developed their nukes after withdrawing from the NPT in 2003.
Iran has not done research in the area of HOW to build a bomb. None. Not only is there is no HARD evidence of Iran's building a bomb, there is no evidence at all. And no, there is no possible way that Iran could conduct a nuclear test without building the bomb first. It's complicated chicken and the egg stuff. I wouldn't expect you to understand. To build a bomb, you need highly enriched uranium or plutonium and Iran has none of either. You also need highly advanced detonators and Iran has none of those, because they need more testing than the nuke itself.
AlBaradei is not Iran's friend and defender. He just happens to be a scientist who is concerned with truth, not political positioning. People like you were calling Hans Blix Saddam's friend when he warned there were no WMD in Iraq. Why is it you wingnuts are so determined to look like fools for a second time?
Posted by Shingo at 11/11/2009 @ 9:20pm
Continued...
The reason Al Baradei hasn't been able to finishing the investigation is because the US refuses to accept his findings. Every time he concludes there are no nukes being made, he gets told to go back and keep looking for them.
The 16 US agencies did not say that Iran STOPPED building a bomb, becasue
a) They never started b) The NIE said that Iran gave up it's nuclear weapons program, and given that it took them till 2006 to even start low level enrichment, means they never had a program to begin with.
Even the existence of the alleged program is based on a stolen laptop that the CIA have said cannot be trusted, seeing as was provided by the political wing of the terrorist group the MEK.
As someone who has read a lot of nuclear related safety and safeguard reports, I did read it and I know what I'm looking at.
As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the inalienable right to nuclear power and to develop nuclear fuel cycle. The UN resolution was a violation of the NPT treaty. Of course, Israel continue to violate UNSC resolutions and simply get rewarded for it.
Perhaps over there wingnutville, IAEA and US government and US Department of Energy web sites are considered lunatic websites, but here on planet earth, they have some credibility.
Israel's existence was not threatened in 1973, just it's control of the Sinai, which they had stolen in 1967. It was a conventional war that did not threaten either side. Israel just weren't used to losing and panicked.
Don't even try to lecture to me about facts. While wingnuts you were at the head of the line, ready to swallow the Kool Aid about Iraq's WMD and connection to 911, I was telling everyone it was BS.
Posted by Shingo at 11/11/2009 @ 9:25pm
Yeah, AlBaradei told us it was a hole in the ground and you, of course, believe him. Why would anyone? If he is scientist, how come he made so many political statements? If you believe the US government websites, here is the news for you: they said that Syria did have a nuclear program. And North Korea INFORMED the world about its nuclear program after leaving NPT; it developed it while being in it and IAEA had no clue. I see that you are just overanxious to trust Iran and IAEA but I have never heard about that being taught in engineering schools (maybe in liberal schools for future peaceniks). So normal people don't trust them. As I said, the fact that IAEA didn't stumble into highly enriched uranium yet doesn't mean anything (especially if they prefer to look the other way). So the US is not letting alBaradei to finish his report? What about France and Britain, and Germany, those who always prefer not to have any troubles in the world. If they could end this up, they would have long ago. Plus, again, now it's Obama in the office and he is no Bush… The NIE report didn't say Iran had never started – that's you words. And the Arab states started a war in 1973 to get rid of Israel – they didn't even try to hide that goal. So stop bragging about your credentials – even if you have them, they don't help you be reasonable and learn the real facts.
Posted by teasethegeese at 11/11/2009 @ 10:10pm
Yeah, AlBaradei told us it was a hole in the ground and you, of course, believe him. Why would anyone? Posted by teasethegeese at 11/11/2009 @ 10:10pm
Yeah reality sucks doesn't it? It's so funny to watch you wingnuts coming unhinged. It's like someone kicked over your sandcastle.
No US intelligence report has stated that Syria has or had a nuclear program. North Korea did not develop any nuclear weapons while belonging to the NPT. It took them 4 years after withdrawing before they were able to conduct a nuclear test.
I am not anxious to trust Iran, I just don't suffer from amnesia. I remember seeing all this warmongering and propaganda back in 2002/2003 and fools like you are falling for it again.
So given that all your arguments have been slapped down, you go onto suggest that engineering is for wimps and that normal people (ie. wingnuts) don't trust them. That comes as a surprise, because if you didn't trust engineers, then you wouldn't be driving cars, putting gas into those cars, flying in planes, driving those cars over roads and bridges. The reason the IAEA didn't stumble into highly enriched uranium yet is because the IAEA verified with 100% certainty, that Iran is no diverting any uranium for nuclear weapons production, so yes, it does mean something – everything in fact. As for France and Britain, and Germany, they have no evidence of Iran making nukes either.
The NIE report doesn't say Iran ever started building nukes. It said that there was evidence of a nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Yes, Egypt started the war in 1973, which was a hangover of the 1967 war that Israel started. No it was not to get rid of Israel, it was to get back the Sinai. . Now off yo go and do some reading of real news. Yo won't find facts in comic books.
Posted by Shingo at 11/11/2009 @ 10:32pm
Shingo, here are a couple quotes for you from today news by AP: 1. In 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran disclosed the existence of two previously secret nuclear facilities -- a pilot uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a research reactor being built in the city of Arak, which turned out to house Iran's uranium enrichment program and a hard-water reactor project. 2. One of the diplomats -- a senior official from a European nation -- said Thursday that the enrichment hall is too small to house the tens of thousands of centrifuges needed for peaceful industrial nuclear enrichment, but is the right size to contain the few thousand advanced machines that could generate the amount of weapons-grade uranium needed to make nuclear warheads. The pauses in construction may reflect Tehran's determination to keep its activities secret as far back as 2002, when Iran's clandestine nuclear program was revealed. Citing satellite imagery, the diplomats said Iran started building the plant in 2002, paused for two years in 2004 - the same year it suspended enrichment on an international demand - and resumed construction in 2006, when enrichment was also restarted.
It's obvious that Iran was building something illicit back then and that IAEA didn't have a clue (and, by the way, the break coincides with the time we bombed Iraq and scared the shit of Iran that they would be next). And that thing is NOT a hole in the ground as alBaradei suggested. As for engineers, I trust them a lot. I just don't trust ideological idiots like you claiming that they are engineers but showing no knowledge or logic actual engineers possess. By the way, what did Syria want in 1973 – part of Sinai?
So it looks like discussion is over because you don't have a clue.
Posted by teasethegeese at 11/13/2009 @ 7:20pm
Shingo, here are a couple quotes for you from today news by AP: Posted by teasethegeese at 11/13/2009 @ 7:20pm
"In 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran disclosed the existence of two previously secret nuclear facilities"
First, the National Council of Resistance of Iran the political arms of the MEK, listed by the Sate Department as a terrorist organization and who's "disclosures" have been dismissed by the CIA as unreliable. Secondly, no nuclear material had been introduced to the Nataz facility, so there was no NPT violation. Iran didn't even begin enrichment until 2 years later.
The research reactor at Arak was already known to the IAEA and it did not breach any NPT agreements.
"One of the diplomats -- a senior official from a European nation -- said Thursday.."
As I have already explained, this statement form the alleged "senior" official, fails basic logic. If the plant cannot produce enough uranium for a power plant, then how can it possibly produce enough uranium for a bomb, that requires a much higher quantity of U235 than any power reactor?
According to Israeli intelligence, after 3 years of enrichment output from the industrial sized Natanz facility, Iran might have enough LEU by the end of 2009 to produce one bomb if they decide to enrich the LEU to HEU.
Secondly, the new facility will be under IAEA supervision, so there is no possibility of Iran producing HEU without the IAEA knowing about it. There were no pauses in construction. The facility already existed as a military facility and is simply being converted into an enrichment plant. As Al Baradei said, it is nothing but a hole in the ground.
Continued...
Posted by Shingo at 11/15/2009 @ 7:42pm
Continued...
There was no clandestine nuclear program ever revealed. If it is true that Iran had begun construction in 2002, as resumed after 2004, then it woudl have rated a mention in the 2007 NIE. It did not.
What this proves is that the so called senior official, is a liar.
So you see, at no stage was Iran building anything illicit then. If they had, the IAEA would have reported such activity and more importantly, the 16 US intelligence agencies would have said so. They said otherwise.
Sorry, but you saying that the facility is NOT a hole in the ground is meaningless. As you have proven time and again, you haven't got a clue what you are talking abut. Al Baradei and the IAEA has seen it, You haven't.
The discussion is over because I have demonstrated that you are impervious to facts and are simply sticking to what you want to believe.
Take my advice and educate yourself, or I'm just going to beat you every time we debate this topic, becasue I know what I'm talking about.
Leave this topic to adults.
Posted by Shingo at 11/15/2009 @ 7:48pm