MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on November 14, 2007, 09:09:50 AM
-
Strange, they kept saying their nuclear program was for "peaceful purposes"....I wonder why they would have blueprints for a nuclear weapon then. ::)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/14/wiran114.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/14/wiran114.xml)
Scramble the bombers....
-
Scramble the bombers....
Start a war over unseen weapons of mass destruction?
Sounds like a great idea. What possibly could go wrong?
-
I read that headline and thought, "oh, great, now the IAEA has nuclear bomb plans too?"
-
no need to scramble the bombers.. Iran gave their blueprints to the IAEA.. if they had kept them then I'd be worried but now they don't even have those.
-
Saddam gave the UN an accounting of his non-existent WMD's in January of 03, we called him a liar and invaded anyway. If the same template is followed, Iran giving the IAEA their blueprints means war is inevitable. Giddyup.
-
no need to scramble the bombers.. Iran gave their blueprints to the IAEA.. if they had kept them then I'd be worried but now they don't even have those.
Not throwing in with the lets go nuts and bomb them crowd, but it is the 21st century I'm pretty sure even Iran has copy machines. If they turned over the drawing doesn't mean there aren't copies. So its a least a little direct evidence that they have the possibility to maybe create nuclear weapons.
-
no need to scramble the bombers.. Iran gave their blueprints to the IAEA.. if they had kept them then I'd be worried but now they don't even have those.
Not throwing in with the lets go nuts and bomb them crowd, but it is the 21st century I'm pretty sure even Iran has copy machines. If they turned over the drawing doesn't mean there aren't copies. So its a least a little direct evidence that they have the possibility to maybe create nuclear weapons.
*sigh* try as I might, it doesn't seem like I can get by without using emoticons.. there goes my emote-count for this season too. sorry, thought it was more obvious that I was being facetious.
-
Pakuni, the world will rue the day in spades if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Absolutely must not be allowed to happen. Period.
-
Start a war over unseen weapons of mass destruction?
Sounds like a great idea. What possibly could go wrong?
Sit back and appease crazy leaders and do nothing at all.....what possibly could wrong?
(http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/a/P/hitler22.jpg)
(http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/holocaust.jpg)
-
True, no one stopped Bush, and look what he has done. ;D Too easy, too obvious.
-
Saddam gave the UN an accounting of his non-existent WMD's in January of 03, we called him a liar and invaded anyway. If the same template is followed, Iran giving the IAEA their blueprints means war is inevitable. Giddyup.
We, the British, Australians, etc, etc...called him a liar. Of course we also did find WMD there, just not in the tonnage that some would have liked. At the end of the day, Saddam is playing with 72 virgins right now, Iraq is stabilizing daily, has a democratically elected government and hopefully 10 to 20 years from now we'll look back and say that it was all worth it. Today, not so sure, but I like to think a little bigger than what's happening this very second.
-
Pakuni, the world will rue the day in spades if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Absolutely must not be allowed to happen. Period.
Oh, the drama. I'm pretty sure we heard the same things about Iraq's massive WMD capabilities. A non-nuclear Iran is much preferable. But the Iranians are far more pragmatic than you're giving them credit for.
Regardless, I didn't realize the only options were:
A. Scramble bombers for a unilateral pre-emptive attack on suspected nuclear sites that might be impenetrable.
B. Nuclear holocaust!!!
Maybe, just maybe, there might be some other ways to address this. And if it comes down to an attack, why not let a country that might actually be threatened directly by an Iranian nuke (I'm looking at you, Israel) carry the water on it?
-
The WMD's we found were in shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war that had been misplaced. Oooooooooooh.
-
Ahmadinejad has told us that he has 3,000 centerfuges going-----the UN has affirmed they are enriching uranium. Can anyone really believe that the mullahs could resist being a nuclear power with this enriched uranium as passionate as they are to spreading islamo/facist revolution (Hezbullah)------and at the same time striving for intercontinental missle capability-----what are they going to put on those long range missles, Fireworks?
-
The Iranians are much more pragmatic...oh really. Please explain.
While you're explaining please be sure to include 1979 hostages, the funding of Hezbollah, the threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, etc, etc.
A pragmatic bunch indeed. I have to laugh when you say it would be ideal that they don't have it.....how on earth EVER would it be good to have ANOTHER nation with nuclear weapons, especially one that is in the middle east with all of the religious passions, etc. Ideal is an understatement. Absolutely MUST NOT EVER be allowed to happen. PERIOD.
And no Tower, actually that's not all that was found...this would require you to read opposite viewpoints. I've given you countless books and articles on this, but you don't want to read them...that's fine.
-
Oh, the drama. I'm pretty sure we heard the same things about Iraq's massive WMD capabilities. A non-nuclear Iran is much preferable. But the Iranians are far more pragmatic than you're giving them credit for.
I wonder if the 100,000 to 300,000 dead Kurds paused to consider their own role in the "drama?"
You pick the number you want--the low estimate of 100,000. Saddam's own admission of 180,000. The 300,000 as reported by the BBC. Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens. I'm not sure what you mean by "massive", but anything that kills 100,000 people probably qualfies by most measures.
Those pragmatic Iranis would much rather use their WMD to kill somebody else, say, the Israealis.
Now THAT's pragmatism.
-
I wonder if the 100,000 to 300,000 dead Kurds paused to consider their own role in the "drama?"
You pick the number you want--the low estimate of 100,000. Saddam's own admission of 180,000. The 300,000 as reported by the BBC. Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens. I'm not sure what you mean by "massive", but anything that kills 100,000 people probably qualfies by most measures.
Might want to check your facts on this.
I believe what you speak of is Hussein's al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, which, according to Human Rights Watch killed between 50,000 and 100,000. Terrible stuff, indeed.
However, the vast majority of those people died through conventional weaponry. In terms of chemical weapons deaths, the number has been placed about about 5,300 to 7,300 by Human Rights Watch.
Again, terrible stuff, but certainly not anywhere near the scale you claim.
http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/
And of course, the U.S. was so outraged by these attacks our government ... did ... nothing. It's a tad bit galling - and completely laughable - that you would suggest that a 15-year-old incident had some great influence over this administration's motivation for war.
Regardless, what this now nearly 20-year old incident in Iraq has to do with the current situation in Iran, I'm not quite sure. Unless you're suggesting it's in the United States' interests to attack Iran so that it doesn't nuke itself.
Those pragmatic Iranis would much rather use their WMD to kill somebody else, say, the Israealis.
Now THAT's pragmatism.
Then let the Israelis fight their own battle. If they believe Iran is planning a nuclear attack on them, then by all means they should defend themselves. Thanks to our government and our tax dollars, they're plenty capable.
-
Facts indeed....seems you forgot a few "incidents" Pakuni.
* Halabja poison gas attack:The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period 15 March–19 March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces and a number of civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000) were killed.[1]
* Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.[1][2]
* In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[3]
-
The Iranians are much more pragmatic...oh really. Please explain.
While you're explaining please be sure to include 1979 hostages, the funding of Hezbollah, the threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, etc, etc.
It's simple, really.
The Iranian government, like all governments, is interested first and foremost in its own survival and the retention - if not expansion - of power. The Iranian government also is very likely aware of the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel or the U.S. would be met with a response so severe that it would forever eliminate it from the face of the earth. That would kind of put a damper on that whole vision of a pan-Arab Islamic state, don't ya think?
So either you believe that this Iranian government is different from all other governments in the history of the world and seeks its own destruction, or you believe that it has enough pragmatism not to engage in acts that would render it extinct.
Now, on to your specific examples:
1979 hostage taking: This was not a pragmatic act, but it also was not the act of an established, reigning Iranian government. Rather, it was the act of a group of revolutionaries in the heat of an ongoing rebellion. The two groups are hardly analogous. You simply can't compare the acts of a group of college kids caught up in revolutionary fervor with that of a standing government.
Support for Hezbollah: Contrary to your implication, this is, in fact, a perfect example of Iranian pragmatism.
Like most governments, the Iranian government thinks their way of doing things is the best and seek to extend it, and their influence, through the world and particularly through their region. And in doing so, of course, they seek to diminish the influence of opposing powers
One way of doing this is through proxies, such as Hezbollah. Doing so allows a nation to extend its power and influence without directly confronting an opponent.
Of course, the U.S. would never do anything like that.
We'd never support Cuban rebels.
Or an insurgency in Nicaragua or Afghanistan.
Or anti-government forces in Angola.
Or propped up an anti-Communist government anywhere in the world.
Perish the thought.
Note: I'm not equating the morality of Hezbollah to any U.S.-backed proxy (though we've backed some pretty awful people in our time), but rather pointing out that such support is a pragmatic act done regularly by major governments around the world.
Threat to wipe out Israel: Such threats are nothing new for the Iranian regime. Khomeni made similar remarks nearly three decades ago. You may note that Iran has done little to act on such political rhetoric.
You may also note that the person making these threats, Ahmadinejad, lacks the ability to follow through on them given that he is not the nation's commander-in-chief. Frankly, such rhetoric may be harmful to Iran in a global sense, but it plays well in the Arab world, where the country most wants to extend its influence. Therefore, there actually is an element of pragmatism to it.
Any more you'd like me to shoot down?
A pragmatic bunch indeed. I have to laugh when you say it would be ideal that they don't have it
Must have been quite a chortle, given that I never said anything about anything being ideal.
.....how on earth EVER would it be good to have ANOTHER nation with nuclear weapons, especially one that is in the middle east with all of the religious passions, etc. Ideal is an understatement. Absolutely MUST NOT EVER be allowed to happen. PERIOD.
And yet when a far more unstable Middle Eastern nation, aka Pakistan, worked to acquire nukes, what did we do to stop them?
Regardless, you're debating a straw man here. Not one post in this thread suggests Iran should be allowed to go nuclear, much less that it would be "good". Where do you get that?
Rather, the cool-headed among us are suggesting that perhaps it would be best not to start another pre-emptive war with unclear goals, without expending every other option and without having all the facts.
I know, I know ... it sounds silly, but maybe we should try it this time around.
-
Facts indeed....seems you forgot a few "incidents" Pakuni.
Did you read what I wrote before you responded?
The Halabja attack and other chemical weapons attacks during the Al-Anfal Campaign killed an estimated 5,300 to 7,300 people, which is exactly what I wrote and provided a link to back it up (something Marquette84 chose not to do).
Rather, he claimed that Hussein used WMD to kill at least 100,000 of his own people, which appears to be a blatantly false statement.
The other incidents of which you write are not relevant to the discussion because a) they didn't involve WMDs and b) clearly were not all that upsetting to our government, because we stood by and let it happen.
And now, could someone explain what Hussein's acts against the Kurds almost 20 years ago has to do with the current situation with Iran?
-
That's your fundamental problem....you think that these people want to self preserve and hang around. If you listen to Ahmadeijian, that is not the case at all. In fact he talks openly of sacrificing the country, etc for the greater good if it means taking down Israel.
That is the fundamental problem. You assume we are dealing with rational people, we are not.
As for Iraq and the Kurds, no I don't read it that way at all. He said 100K to 300K. I provided text that more than cover that amount. You provided different information...who's right...who cares, the man was despicable, supported terrorism, killed his own people, admitted to trying to acquire a nuclear weapon(s), etc. The world is better off without him. PERIOD.
-
That's your fundamental problem....you think that these people want to self preserve and hang around. If you listen to Ahmadeijian, that is not the case at all. In fact he talks openly of sacrificing the country, etc for the greater good if it means taking down Israel.
Could you please cite an example where he, or any other high-ranking Iranian official, has said anything about sacrificing their country for some greater good?
To the contrary, Khameni - the guy who really calls the shots in Iran - has publicly stated the opposite, and that Iran does not seek military conflict with Israel.
"We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable."
http://www.khamenei.ir/EN/Speech/detail.jsp?id=20051104A
Does that sound like some irrational madman eager to see his country returned to the Stone Age?
And while you're seeking these suicidal remarks, also find some examples of purely irrational behavior by the Iranian regime. By irrational, of course, I don't mean policy decisions with which you or I might disagree, but rather acts that would seek its own destruction or neutralization.
Should be easy, given how extremely irrational they are.
As for Iraq and the Kurds, no I don't read it that way at all. He said 100K to 300K.
Oh, come on. How could you possibly read it any other way?
Here's the direct quote:
"Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens"
What other way is there to possibly read it? You're defending the indefensible here. He made an incorrect statement to exaggerate what really occurred. End of story, as you like to say.
-
Here's the direct quote:
"Even at the low end, Iraq used their WMD to kill 100,000 of their OWN citizens"
What other way is there to possibly read it? You're defending the indefensible here. He made an incorrect statement to exaggerate what really occurred. End of story, as you like to say.
Perhaps we could refocus here: My primary beef was your charactarization of 180,000 to 300,000 deaths as "drama".
Well, you've caught me in a mistake--it was only 5,000 to 7,000 that actully died due to the WMD attacks. Its okay to kill 93,000 to 295,000 of your own people as long as its using conventional weapons. And a chemical weapon attack that kills 5,000 to 7,000 of your own people just isn't all that bad, even if the attacks themselves intended to kill a far greater number.
THAT makes me feel better. ONLY 3 to 5% of the total deaths were due to chemical weapons.
Let me rephrase the question for you:
I wonder if those 5,000 to 7,000 dead Kurds paused to consider their own role in the "drama?"
And I wonder if the others are content knowing that they were attacked by conventional weapons rather than WMD?
Perhaps in your next post you can share the Human Rights Watch table showing have to die in a chemical weapons attack to move from purely "drama" to something more serious.
-
Perhaps we could refocus here: My primary beef was your charactarization of 180,000 to 300,000 deaths as "drama".
Interesting.
It would be even more interesting had I actually characterized 180,000 to 300,000 deaths as "drama".
Alas, I did not. I never even mentioned the Kurd situation, much less refer to it as drama.
Rather, this was a weak attempt on your behalf to insert something into the argument that simply does not belong or have any relevance.
My use of the word drama, as you can easily see, was in reference to Chico's hyperbolic implication that a second Holocaust is just around the corner. That should have been plainly apparent. If I was somehow not clear enough for you, I apologize.
Its okay to kill 93,000 to 295,000 of your own people as long as its using conventional weapons. And a chemical weapon attack that kills 5,000 to 7,000 of your own people just isn't all that bad, even if the attacks themselves intended to kill a far greater number.
Sigh.
I was hoping we could get beyond these kinds of straw men.
Please point out where I said anything of the sort.
In fact, the opposite was true. I clearly stated - twice - that Hussein's actions were "terrible."
Now please, for the third time, answer my question: Why is what happened in Iraq 19.5 years ago relevant to today's situation in Iran, unless your position that we must attack Iran to keep that government from detonating a nuclear weapon within its borders?
If you choose not to answer again, I'll feel comfortable assuming you have no adequate response and agree that the two issues are not related.
-
Pakuni-----of course Iran isn't going to obliterate Televiv------it will be done by a third party that Iran gives/sells a "suitcase nuke" to----Hezbullah?
In addition just the fact that they have nukes gives them power to intimidate other countries in the area! Nukes equal POWER!
-
My use of the word drama, as you can easily see, was in reference to Chico's hyperbolic implication that a second Holocaust is just around the corner. That should have been plainly apparent. If I was somehow not clear enough for you, I apologize.
You say that suggesting Ahmadinejad might actually use WMD, well, that's just "drama."
After all, you say, "I'm pretty sure we heard the same things about Iraq's massive WMD capabilities." Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me like your implication is that we don't have to worry about Iran since nothing bad happened with Iraq's WMD.
I am merely reminding you that Iraq ACTUALLY USED those WMD capabilites.
Ahmedinijad's desire against Isreal is at least as strong as Saddam's desire against the Kurds. Therefore the implication that he might use WMD capabilites is more than "drama." Especially if his WMD of choice is nuclear rather than chemical.
Now please, for the third time, answer my question: Why is what happened in Iraq 19.5 years ago relevant to today's situation in Iran,
Why are you asking me? YOU made the comparison (and I quote): "I'm pretty sure we heard the same things about Iraq's massive WMD capabilities."
Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sure sounds like your implication here is that we shouldn't worry about Ahmadinijad getting WMD because Saddam had them as well, and he only used them to kill 7000 of his own people.
-
You say that suggesting Ahmadinejad might actually use WMD, well, that's just "drama."
No, I say that Chico's effort to portray Iran's efforts to acquire nukes as the second coming of the Holocaust and a surefire worldwide disaster is drama.
After all, you say, "I'm pretty sure we heard the same things about Iraq's massive WMD capabilities." Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems to me like your implication is that we don't have to worry about Iran since nothing bad happened with Iraq's WMD.
You are wrong. I made no such implication. It's an inference you're drawing out of thin air.
Rather, my point - as I've stated a couple times now - is that we shouldn't be rushing off to "scramble the bombers" without knowing exactly what we're dealing with and the consequences of our actions.
Such was not the case when hyperbolic arguments like Chico's were made in favor of the Iraq War. As you may recall, the issue then wasn't about something that happened 15 years earlier in northern Iraq, but rather a claim that Iraq's WMD stockpile presented a very real and present threat to the American people now. It turns out we didn't know what we were talking about and the things we heard about Iraq in the months leading up to the war were largely false.
These are the "same things" about which I speak now. As was the case during the Iraq War buildup, the quick-to-war crowd is claiming we must pre-emptively strike because of an unseen WMD capability that presents a very real and present threat to the American people. Even more dramatically, Chico's tells us that the world faces second Holocaust if we don't take military action.
Who knows, maybe he's right. But I think that before our goverment "scrambles the bombers" and rushes off to commit another pre-emptive act of war, let's this time be sure we know what we're doing, why we're doing it and how we're going to do it. Let's be sure there really is a threat.
Such was not the case when we went into Iraq, and it's cost tens of thousands of lives. And I would say it's very likely we cannot answer those questions about Iran today.
If that's somehow unreasonable, please explain why.
I am merely reminding you that Iraq ACTUALLY USED those WMD capabilites.
Yes, within its own borders 19.5 years ago, using capabilities it for the most part it no longer possessed by the time we invaded. Not quite the same as the pro-war arguments presented in 2002 and 2003 which claimed Iraq's (mostly non-existent) WMD stockpile was a threat to me and my family.
Again, how does this relate to Iran starting a nuclear holocaust?
Ahmedinijad's desire against Isreal is at least as strong as Saddam's desire against the Kurds. Therefore the implication that he might use WMD capabilites is more than "drama." Especially if his WMD of choice is nuclear rather than chemical.
Of course it isn't. Hussein actually acted dozens of times on his desires against the Kurds. Ahmedinijad's done nothing that his government hasn't been doing for the past two decades.
On top of that, Ahmedinijad lacks the authority to launch an attack on Israel, so all his tough talk is just that ... talk. I can go around saying I'm going to kick Mike Tyson's a**. Doesn't mean he and his friends need to come over here and pound on me to protect themselves.
Regardless, when did we become Israel's personal bodyguards? We send them billions of dollars in assistance - most of it military - every year. Now you're suggesting that we not only need to arm them, but we need also send our soliders into battle to protect them instead of letting them protect themselves?
No thanks.
If Israel truly believes and can support its belief that Iran intends to launch a nuclear attack upon them, either directly or by proxy, then by all means they should intervene in the method of their choosing.
But let's not ask American soldiers to fight and die to protect a country fully capable of defending itself, thanks largely to our tax dollars.
Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sure sounds like your implication here is that we shouldn't worry about Ahmadinijad getting WMD because Saddam had them as well, and he only used them to kill 7000 of his own people.
Well, you are putting words in my mouth. Once again, this is your inference drawn out of thin air. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. In fact, I've stated numerous times that what happened in Iraq almost two decdes ago has nothing to do with the present situation with Iran.
You know this by now, yet continue to argue it.
Hmmm.
[/quote]
-
Pakuni, I don't differentiate between WMD and non WMD when you're slaughtering your own people. I'm sure the people as they were about to die at the hands of mustard gas or being thrown into a wood chipper didn't either. If you want to get to that level to somehow differentiate, then yes you are 100% correct.
The man is gone, the world a better place, Iraq has a democratically elected government, the man was seeking a nuclear weapon (to do what with I ask), etc, etc.
In the long run, this will serve to be a great move. In the short run, we'll see.
-
I was not portraying Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as the second coming of the holocaust, I was simply showing that many times through history we've gone the other route with dictators with a forceful weapon(s) / military and thought we had brokered peace only to lead to bloodshed 100X worse then if we (the world) had dealt with him up front.
That was the point. You made the argument that taking them out was somehow akin to something disasterous...talk about drama. I was only throwing it right back at you that not doing anything will only lead to many many many times the deaths (eventually) if we don't. Whether it's next year or 20 years from now, you cannot allow these people to have nuclear weapons because someone is going to use them. THAT'S WHY.
And whether you and I are alive then, I'll be happy to remind you when it is used that we had the chance to do it but no one had the balls to do what was necessary when it was possible.
-
Pakuni....here you go as it relates to him wanting to sacrifice his country.
His goal is to bring about Mahdi, which is the Twelth Imam which the prophecies of Islam say is in hiding (roughly 2500 years). In order to bring him out (Mahdi), a great war of unbelievable proportions must be waged and many scholars fear he will start that war because he believes he is the one to bring Mahdi back. Thus committing essentially suicide for his country in the short term but "everlasting" glory for Islam and his people in return.
“Shi’ite Muslims believe that the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, the last in a line of saints descended from Ali, the founder of their sect, vanished down a well in 941 AD,” he said. “According to their beliefs, he went into a state of ‘occultation,’ like the sun being hidden behind the clouds. After a stormy period of apocalyptic wars, the clouds will part, and the sun [the Mahdi] will be revealed. They believe that when he is released from his imprisonment, the entire world will submit to Islam.”
At the close of his speech to the United Nations, Ahmadinejad called for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi. “O mighty Lord,” he said, “I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace.”
This guy wants to fulfill a prophecy....he is a nutcase...we cannot allow this nutcase to think he's doing "Allah's work" or anyone else's by lobbing over a nuclear device or putting it in truck and detonating it in Tel Aviv, etc. Must not be allowed to happen at any cost.
I mean in all seriousness, why on earth is one of the most oil rich nations in the world, a nation with abundance of energy require the need for nuclear energy? Only one reason.
-
No, I say that Chico's effort to portray Iran's efforts to acquire nukes as the second coming of the Holocaust and a surefire worldwide disaster is drama.
I don't see where Chico said that Iran's EFFORTS to acquire nukes is the 2nd coming of the Holocaust.
I believe he's suggesting that when the leader of Iraq says publicly that Israel should be "wiped off the map" perhaps we should take all means necessary to keep said leader from getting the means to make good on his promises--just in case he actually means it.
I think its clear that he's concered that if they DO get nukes, it may very well lead to the 2nd coming of the holocaust.
Rather, my point - as I've stated a couple times now - is that we shouldn't be rushing off to "scramble the bombers" without knowing exactly what we're dealing with and the consequences of our actions.
And you talk about Chico's drama. "Scramble the bombers."
Nobody is saying the only action we have right now is to "scramble the bombers."
What is being said is that nothing should be ruled out in achieving the goal of keeping Ahmedinijad from acquiring nukes. If that requires "scrambling the bombers", so be it.
It certainly reduces our negotiating strength if we categorically rule that option out while working other options.
As you may recall, the issue then wasn't about something that happened 15 years earlier in northern Iraq, but rather a claim that Iraq's WMD stockpile presented a very real and present threat to the American people now.
This is a lie.
In fact, the President's exact quote was that we needed to act BEFORE the thret was imminent
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. "
It turns out we didn't know what we were talking about and the things we heard about Iraq in the months leading up to the war were largely false.
Yes, 20/20 hindsight is great, isn't it?
There was worldwide and bipartisan consensus from the early 1990's right up through the start of the war that Saddam had WMD. Clinton said so. Kerry said so. The Brits said so. The UN said so. The French said so. Even George Bush said so.
Well, the intelligence was wrong. The answer isn't to decide never again to take action. The answer was to beef up intelligence efforts so we don't make the same mistakes. That has been done. I think there's more solid evidence that Ahmadinijad is actually working on a nuclear weapon's program.
These are the "same things" about which I speak now. As was the case during the Iraq War buildup, the quick-to-war crowd is claiming we must pre-emptively strike because of an unseen WMD capability that presents a very real and present threat to the American people. Even more dramatically, Chico's tells us that the world faces second Holocaust if we don't take military action.
And because the intelligence was wrong on Iraq we should forever be forced to wait until some more specific proof to act.
I do certainly hope you're not suggesting that we should wait until we see a mushroom cloud over TelAviv before we act.
Specifically what signs are you looking for? At what point is it important enough to "scramble the bombers?"
Who knows, maybe he's right. But I think that before our goverment "scrambles the bombers" and rushes off to commit another pre-emptive act of war, let's this time be sure we know what we're doing, why we're doing it and how we're going to do it. Let's be sure there really is a threat.
And what is your criteria for deciding that Ahmadinijad represents a threat?
I think Chico's point is that we reach that point sometime before Ahmandinijan has an operational nuke.
Such was not the case when we went into Iraq, and it's cost tens of thousands of lives. And I would say it's very likely we cannot answer those questions about Iran today.
If that's somehow unreasonable, please explain why.
The problem with your simple statement is that we won't have perfect information on whether Ahmadinijad a) has a nuke and b) is serious about his threat to use it until he's actually demonstrated both capabilities. And when he does, it will be too late.
Yes, within its own borders 19.5 years ago, using capabilities it for the most part it no longer possessed by the time we invaded. Not quite the same as the pro-war arguments presented in 2002 and 2003 which claimed Iraq's (mostly non-existent) WMD stockpile was a threat to me and my family.
Once again, this is a lie.
The point was to preemptively take out Saddam before he became a threat to you or your family.
On top of that, Ahmedinijad lacks the authority to launch an attack on Israel, so all his tough talk is just that ... talk. I can go around saying I'm going to kick Mike Tyson's a**. Doesn't mean he and his friends need to come over here and pound on me to protect themselves.
In that case, you damn well better not get a gun. The problem with this scenario is that once you have a gun, the only proof that you were serious about your threat is when Mike Tyson is bleeding from a gunshot wound.
If you threaten Mike Tyson, but never get a gun, we don't really care if you were serious or not because you can't carry out your threat.
Regardless, when did we become Israel's personal bodyguards? We send them billions of dollars in assistance - most of it military - every year. Now you're suggesting that we not only need to arm them, but we need also send our soliders into battle to protect them instead of letting them protect themselves?
No thanks.
We've been Israel's ally (and that is the preferred term as opposed to "bodyguard") since their nation was formed.
And if you don't understand our national interests in that part of the world should Iran launch a nuclear attack on Isreal, then you probably shouldn't be commenting at all.
Let me suggest that if Iran DOES successfully wipe Isreal off the map, it's going to have some extremely bad outcomes for you and your family.
Well, you are putting words in my mouth. Once again, this is your inference drawn out of thin air. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. In fact, I've stated numerous times that what happened in Iraq almost two decdes ago has nothing to do with the present situation with Iran.
You know this by now, yet continue to argue it.
Hmmm.
And yet, you repeatedly use IRAQ as the basis for your argument that we should do nothing about Iran.
If, as you say, Iraq has nothing to do with the present situation in Iran, why do you keep saying that we should ignore the mounting threat in Iran based on what we found or didn't find in Iraq?
[/quote]
[/quote]
-
OK, I'm tired of going round and round on this because you continually misstate and misrepresent what I've said. It's one of your common tricks and it's one of the main reasons I began avoiding you here and on the other board. I enjoy a good, honest debate, but it seems we cannot have one.
But if you're going to accuse someone of lying, at least get your facts straight.
The Bush Administration, and specifically President Bush, repeatedly presented Iraq as a threat to America. Not as a possible threat. Not as a future threat. Not as a might be threat. But a real and present threat.
Bush letter to Congress, July 30, 2002:
"The Government of Iraq continues to engage in activities inimical to stability in the Middle East and hostile to U.S. interests. Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020801-6.html
Bush radio address, Oct. 5, 2002:
"The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing ... Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html
Bush speech on Iraq, February 2003:
"The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
Yeah, you're right. The administration never suggested that Iraq was a threat to me or my family. ::)
If you'd like more examples, I'd be happy to provide them.
p.s. The "scramble the bombers" phrase is one Chico's used to start this thread. Pay attention. But I'm glad we can agree that it was overly dramatic.
-
I said scramble the bombers...I did not say start bombing....a distinct difference. No different then sending a carrier group off a country's border. It's called gunship diplomacy...but if the moment comes, we're there to do it if we have ot.
But if we don't get our crap together and soon, and God knows the incredibly inept UN certainly won't, then we will have lost the chance....and sometime down the road, millions of people are going to die because of it. What a tragedy when we (the world) could have done something about it.
Scramble the bombers....it's time to stop kitten footing around. Tick tock tick tock.....what an incredible human tragedy awaits if we let these nutjobs get access to a nuclear bomb...far more tragic then what would happen if we took out their nuclear capabilities. Not even close in the scales.
-
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
scramble
• verb 1 move or make one’s way quickly and awkwardly, typically by using one’s hands as well as one’s feet. 2 make or become jumbled or muddled. 3 make (a broadcast transmission or telephone conversation) unintelligible unless received by an appropriate decoding device. 4 cook (beaten eggs with a little liquid) in a pan. 5 (with reference to fighter aircraft) take off or cause to take off immediately in an emergency or for action. 6 informal act in a hurried, disorderly, or undignified manner: firms scrambled to win contracts.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/scramble?view=uk
So you can forgive me if I took your chosen phrase of "scramble the bombers" to mean prepare for an attack ... because that's that the phrase means.
-
Wow....how about directly from a military source
As an example
"About 20 NATO jets were scrambled to escort our strategic bombers, including F-16s and Tornadoes, but there were no excesses from the foreign planes," Interfax quoted Drobyshevsky as saying."
Bombers are scrambled all of the time, with 99.99% of the time done in a peaceful way to show strength. I'd suggest you look up what the definition of it means in a military term, not how you make your eggs.
-
OK, I'm tired of going round and round on this because you continually misstate and misrepresent what I've said. It's one of your common tricks and it's one of the main reasons I began avoiding you here and on the other board. I enjoy a good, honest debate, but it seems we cannot have one.
But if you're going to accuse someone of lying, at least get your facts straight.
The Bush Administration, and specifically President Bush, repeatedly presented Iraq as a threat to America. Not as a possible threat. Not as a future threat. Not as a might be threat. But a real and present threat.
In the three quotes you provided, Bush did not single out "stockpile of WMD" as the only reason we went to war or the only threat we faced. In Bush's quotes you provided, IRAQI ACTIONS and the IRAQI REGIME posed the real and growing threat.
Now look at your quote:
". . .a claim that Iraq's WMD stockpile presented a very real and present threat to the American people now." (emphasis added)
Do you see the difference?
You said the 'WMD stockpile' was the threat. And to add a good measure of hyperbole, you appended the word "now," implying some sense of imminence. And please, I'm not misstating or misrepresenting you. The word "now" has a meaning. If YOU didn't mean it, then admit you were wrong to use it. Don't accuse me of interpreting it in its normal meaning.
In fact, my interpretation of your statement is that its a version of the old lefty lie. Misrepresent the case for the war as being only about an imminent threat form WMD. Then you can criticize the war as being completely wrong since no WMD were found, therefore the threat was not imminent.
---------------------------
I admit that I was wrong to suggest that your statement was a lie. Your statement may have been merely erroneous.
So before you accuse me of misstating or misrepresenting you, please clarify for me--did you really mean to limit your statement to WMD? Or should I have interpreted it to include all the other reasons for war that were identified at the time?
BTW, if its the latter, I would expect you to admit that this part of your quote was wrong:
" It turns out we didn't know what we were talking about and the things we heard about Iraq in the months leading up to the war were largely false."
No. What we heard about Iraq was mostly true. The belief that Saddam still had significant quantities of WMD was false--but outside of that, the fact that at one point he did have them, that he did use them, that he started two wars, that he defied the UN, that he tortured and murdered his own people, that he was stealing form the Oil For Food program, that he was cheating on the no-fly restrictions, that he was hiding records on his WMD programs, he planned an assassination attempt at a former US President, he helped terrorist organizations, he was seeking new WMD capabilities including nuclear capability, he never accounted for what happened to the WMD he was verified to have etc. etc. etc. Well, all those things we heard about Iraq were largely true.
The intelligence on WMD was wrong. But the war wasn't about WMD alone. I think you know that, as well.
Finally, I posed what I thought was a reasonable question, which you have not answered:
Specifically what signs are you looking for to take action against Iran? At what point is it important enough to "scramble the bombers?"
Its one thing for you to say that it's not time to do that now. But when? What is your criteria?
Or is it your view that American policy should be to let allies be wiped off the face of the earth unless they take care of things themselves? If this is the case, then I'd be interested in what role we SHOULD take as an ally, and whether your policy of letting "Israel take care of Israel" also applies to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, the shipping channels in the Persian Gulf, etc.
And please, this time spare me the accusation that I'm pulling this out of thin air, misstating or misrepresenting you.