Iran gives IAEA blueprints for nuclear weapon

[Marquette84]

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. 

[Pakuni]

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]

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Marquette84]

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]

[Pakuni]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Marquette84]

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.