Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Nuclear war against Iran

457 posts in this topic

I don't disagree bumpy...as I said...ONE of the reasons. One of many reasons. N. Korea also used the U.S being engaged in Iraq to flex its muscles to get "something".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't disagree bumpy...as I said...ONE of the reasons. One of many reasons. N. Korea also used the U.S being engaged in Iraq to flex its muscles to get "something".

Well, they only "get" something if we give N. Korea something.

 

As far as I'm concerned, NK is China's problem. They've been in support of the Hermit Kingdom since the "great" leader Mao was in charge. Ironic, considering over 75% of the chinese think that capitalism is the only way forward.

 

Let china deal with NK - let it consume their diplomatic band-width.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

they didn't "kick them them out" they left under pressure from the U.S. and others who forced the security council issue...

???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our stupid foreign policy is based on a pre 21st century world. We should be fully engaged and that means direct contact. There is this fallacy that if we withhold diplomatic relations then the other side will scream uncle. If Iran wants nuclear power, then why the hell can't they have it? Almost every developed country on earth has nuclear power plants and so why can't Iran? There is a huge difference in creating energy and creating a bomb. Our Administration's obstinence has only led to the situation spiraling out of control. Bush and co have only themselves to blame and Americans that voted for him can share that blame right along with them.

True diplomacy starts long before the problem and true diplomacy is not what Bush is about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@gemini

 

When I say that European nations would back the US, I am not talking about a US nuclear first-strike. I'm saying that the negotiations between Iran and the EU3 (UK, France, Germany) have already broken off. The Russian deal was also rejected by Iran. The US has no formal diplomatic relations with Iran, since 1979 or so. Now seeing that the UK, US, Russia, France are members of the UN Security Council, they are already pretty much in agreement about an Iranian policy.

 

Therefore, because a conventional military option remains on the table, I do not see how they could fail to back military strikes if necessary. (Like Gulf War I).

 

@euro

 

It's always about Bush with you. Your post above is even more non-sensical than usual. You haven't learned anything about how easy it is to convert low-grade uranium into weapons grade. It just requires more centrifuges. Iran claims that they produced this industrial (low-grade) uranium with 164 cetrifuges. It has been reported that they have plans to build a facility with 50,000 centrifuges. And if you think that the 2 tubes they showed on tv is all they have, you're wrong again. They have already produced 110 tons of the stuff. You are a human-shield candidate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

they didn't "kick them them out" they left under pressure from the U.S. and others who forced the security council issue...

Wrong again. Prior to the IAEA taking Iran to the UN Security Counicl, the Iranian parliment passed a law that says, if IAEA refers Iran to the Sec. Council, Iran must "kick out" the inspectors by stopping SNAP inspections. So, unless you are trying to claim that the Iranian parliment is influenced by the US, you're just wrong that the US wanted the inspectors out. They Iranian wanted them out, and now they are.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last report I heard was 3 years. Still time enough for diplomacy and the other option.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue was referred to the security council (or better put put pressure on others by implying this was the only route acceptable to them) as a matter of urgency by the Americans (who knew other permanent members would not veto). Others in the EU urged caution before this as they knew what the Iranian response would be...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just said Iran was referred to the Security Council by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Al Baradhi (IAEA). He's not American.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@euro

 

It's always about Bush with you. Your post above is even more non-sensical than usual. You haven't learned anything about how easy it is to convert low-grade uranium into weapons grade. It just requires more centrifuges. Iran claims that they produced this industrial (low-grade) uranium with 164 cetrifuges. It has been reported that they have plans to build a facility with 50,000 centrifuges. And if you think that the 2 tubes they showed on tv is all they have, you're wrong again. They have already produced 110 tons of the stuff. You are a human-shield candidate.

Firstly, you know zilch about nuclear weapons and how they are made. You cannot spout the Fox propaganda on this one and get away with it. And you better fucking believe it is all about Bush! He is the supposed CIC and he is failing miserably. We have already been attacked on his watch where 3000 Americans were killed and we can't afford another Bushism of a mistake. Another war is not the answer, but that is all Bush has if he doesn't get down and dirty with the diplomacy. It is time for him to be a leader or he needs to resign.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BB

Not quite. Al-Baradhei, as head of the IAEA, submitted the report on the nuclear situation as a prelude to the security council meeting, as obviously the IAEA is closely linked to, if not part of, the UN.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@euro

Don't get me started about your 9/11 conspiracy theories and "Bush knew." Put that in another thread. Everyone knows how Clinton fucked-up by refusing bin laden three times when Sudan offered him to the US, the Gorelick memo and the wall and how he took no action after the 1st World Trade Center strike in 93, not to mention the embassy attacks and the attack on the USS Cole. Try to stay on topic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@BB

Not quite. Al-Baradhei, as head of the IAEA, submitted the report on the nuclear situation as a prelude to the security council meeting, as obviously the IAEA is closely linked to, if not part of, the UN.

Right. And prior to that, the Iranian parliment passed a law saying that the inspectors must leave if IAEA took that action.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and they took that action because of US pressure to go straight to the sec. council bypassing the preferred strategies of other elements. precisely. The US knew it would escalate, as would any sane person, so to me it seems it must have been a deliberate attempt to make the Iranians look unreasonable and thereofre justify later action. I thank you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by that? "...bypassing the preferred strategies of other elements?" I would say, along with the entire international community, that the Iranians are unreasonable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, many were suggesting other routes. Further inspections and dialogue and so on were the EUs preferred choice whereas the Russians had already started making overtures at that point.

 

...No more unreasonable than their opposites in the US (and now EU who are falling in line disappointingly, i suppose to give credibility to any UN line.).

 

Off to bed now...last word is yours u lucky bl...just in case u imply the IAEA referred anything...narf!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those efforts failed, before IAEA referred Iran to the Sec. Council.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0