Bush makes veiled threats over Iran

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's not the "West", it's the Bush administration acting unilaterally. And I think they should leave Iran the fuck alone, look how they've fucked up in Iraq.

So national sovereignty means you can hang gays and stone women to death, but it's ok since it's inside your own borders?

Why did we intervene in Rwanda? It was Rwandans killing Rwandans, after all.

 

[maomao]

It's ok to be gay if you're in the west, but not if you have a turban?

You think bombing them will encourage a more liberated attitude towards homosexuals?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You think bombing them will encourage a more liberated attitude towards homosexuals?

Not necessarily, but as a result of their social policies, the thought of them posssessing nuclear weapons gives me pause, to say the least.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The thing is, it doesn't look like the US government has any smart options in regard to Iran. Although it has plenty of really stupid ones and may choose to go that route for reasons of domestic politics, a deliberate failure to take reality into account or plain dumbness.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To make a simple minded analogy, countries are like neighbors, and nobody on the block is happy to see the nutjob in the house by the alley buying a rifle, even if he's legally able to do so.

 

[Sorry.]

Not necessarily, but as a result of their social policies, the thought of them posssessing nuclear weapons gives me pause, to say the least.

I dare say if the US had any problem with Iranian social policy they wouldn't have declined to comment on the wave of rioting and government repression that's embroiled Iranian Kurdistan for the past 2 months. But I'm sure it's not worth offending Ankara over...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

To make a simple minded analogy, countries are like neighbors, and nobody on the block is happy to see the nutjob in the house by the alley buying a rifle, even if he's legally able to do so.

But if he's doing it because he's being regularly threatened by the biggest nutjob in the neighbourhood who has just mortared the house and then machine-gunned some of the kids of the rifle guy's next door neighbour, on the basis of vague suspicions?

I mean yes, I agree it would bit worrying if Iran were actively developing nucelar weapons, but it's not exactly incomprehensible that they'd want to.

In this analogy, I think we'd be looking for the cops to disarm all of these maniacs.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But if he's doing it because he's being regularly threatened by the biggest nutjob in the neighbourhood has just mortared the house and then machine-gunned some of the kids of the rifle guy's next door neighbour, on the basis of vague suspicions?

I mean yes, I agree it would bit worrying if Iran were actively developing nucelar weapons, but it's not exactly incomprehensible that they'd want to.

The last person to attack Iran was Saddam Hussein.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I mean yes, I agree it would bit worrying if Iran were actively developing nucelar weapons, but it's not exactly incomprehensible that they'd want to.

Understanding why someone does something doesn't mean we have to accept or condone it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The last person to attack Iran was Saddam Hussein.

Sure but they more or less own Iraq now, or most of it.

They're just waiting for the US to go home so they can move in.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sure but they more or less own Iraq now, or most of it.

They're just waiting for the US to go home so they can move in.

So then what was your 'nutjob next door' analogy all about?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Maybe I'm the only person disturbed by the thought of a country that's run by a fundamentalist theocracy, and that uses medieval methods to scource any sort of social deviation, in possession of nuclear weapons.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So much for the analogy. OK.

As far as I know Iran has straightforwardly followed the NPT, to which they like most civilised countries are a signatory. What they're doing is stuff they're allowed to do under the terms of that treaty. There is no problem, beyond the problems any nuclear anywhere always has associated with it.

And even if there was a problem. The US could not do anything very much about it that I can see without a) failing, b) creating another horrible mess.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So much for the analogy. OK.

As far as I know Iran has straightforwardly followed the NPT, to which they like most civilised countries are a signatory. What they're doing is stuff they're allowed to do under the terms of that treaty. There is no problem, beyond the problems any nuclear anywhere always has associated with it.

And even if there was a problem. The US could not do anything very much about it that I can see without a) failing, b) creating another horrible mess.

August 10, 2005

Iran breaks seals on nuclear plant
By Simon Freeman, Times Online



Iran today moved closer to a potentially damaging showdown with Europe and the US as it began to remove protective seals from sensitive equipment at a controversial nuclear plant, paving the way for the production of enriched uranium.



The move, which will allow the mothballed facility on the outskirts of Isfahan to operate at full capacity, was confirmed by Tehran today as the 35 members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continued a series of crisis talks which could lead to economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation, told state television: "The rest of the seals will be removed today and the [conversion] activities will resume."



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1729412,00.html

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Iranian officials began to personally remove the seals which were placed on machinery by the IAEA in November when Iran suspended conversion as a "goodwill gesture" during tortuous diplomatic talks.

same source

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

same source

Iran has been under investigation for more than two years by the IAEA, which has accused it of harbouring ambitions to launch a military nuclear programme behind the facade of a civilian nuclear programme.



same source

Don't forget what Libya was doing without anyone knowing.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is. I reckon the Iranians are probably amenable to a deal here, they're just trying to get a better price for it. And if people are that bothered about them having nuclear enrichment programmes, doing a deal on it is much more sensible than any stupid shit like bombing them or god forbid invading them.

Threatening them just makes Bush look like an aggressive dickhead again and given the situation in Iraq, let's make that an impotent and incompetent aggressive dickhead. So it's an utterly counterproductive gesture in any terms but posturing for clowns like pbman and mears.

 

[tangentlama]

The last person to attack Iran was Saddam Hussein.

and it was during that time of bloody war that the death penalty was introduced for perceived offences that once received lashings

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thing is. I reckon the Iranians are probably amenable to a deal here, they're just trying to get a better price for it. And if people are that bothered about them having nuclear enrichment programmes, doing a deal on it is much more sensible than any stupid shit like bombing them or god forbid invading them.

Threatening them just makes Bush look like an aggressive dickhead again and given the situation in Iraq, let's make that an impotent and incompetent aggressive dickhead. So it's an utterly counterproductive gesture in any terms but posturing for clowns like pbman and mears.

Ghadaffi vowed that he had stopped trying to make weapons grade uranium, and everyone believed him, until he came clean last year.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

and it was during that time of bloody war that the death penalty was introduced for perceived offences that once received lashings

They've been hanging gays for twenty years now?

What does the war have to do with that?

 

[Rocket Romano]

The Iranians

Are like the Klingons

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Ghadaffi vowed that he had stopped trying to make weapons grade uranium, and everyone believed him, until he came clean last year.

They're letting the IAEA inspectors in, and as we saw in the case of Iraq, nuclear inspectors tend to be very reliable (much more so than the Office of Special Plans say) in being able to tell if there are any weapons.

 

[Andy the Don]

Article from todays Guardian, by Dan Plesch, about how Bush would gain from using a military option against Iran & how the UK would have to get involved at the sharp end of any US military action against Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1549198,00.html

 

[Bernie Gunther]

As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves.

From source above.

Interesting point. I don't remember these guys being mentioned in the Hutton or Butler inquiries into how the JIC came up with such rubbish over Iraq WMD.

 

[nino_savatte]

So national sovereignty means you can hang gays and stone women to death, but it's ok since it's inside your own borders?

Why did we intervene in Rwanda? It was Rwandans killing Rwandans, after all.

Trying to derail the thread? Not half.

 

[nino_savatte]

Maybe I'm the only person disturbed by the thought of a country that's run by a fundamentalist theocracy, and that uses medieval methods to scource any sort of social deviation, in possession of nuclear weapons.

So you would be in favour of an invasion, or a bombing of Iran - is this correct? On the basis of your fears, antipathies, you would actually be in favour of an escalation of tension in the region, together with the conseqeunces that arise from such action, is this correct?

 

[nino_savatte]

They've been hanging gays for twenty years now?

What does the war have to do with that?

What does this have to do with Iran's nuclear program? Nothing.

 

[poster342002]

Dubya is one of those people who doesn't know when enough is enough. Today he has repeated his threat of miltary action against Iran if they don't abandon their nuclear program. So if the shit hits the fan, will Blair stand four square behind his prayer buddy in Washington

What do you think?

 

[nino_savatte]

What do you think?

He will, the megalomaniacal bastard.

 

[Dyno]

Iran has been purchasing some of the most sophisticated missiles the Russians can make for years now. This includes the next generation of 'Sunburst' missiles which haven't been seen in action by the west. Attacking Iran will result in a horrendous war.