Iran hiding Nuclear Facility - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-26-2009, 12:27 PM   #46
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
in 2008, on Meet The Press, Mrs. Clinton had this to say:

In 2008 she was campaigning to win the nomination for President of the Democratic party, a difficult run for her in a party that had become militantly anti-war, at least on the more liberal side. Despite that though, she never said that her vote for the resolution or her support for the war was a mistake.

More importantly, she and no other Democrats who voted for the October 13 resolution came out in opposition against the Bush administration as the war got under way in March 2003. If any of the Democrats who voted for the resolution in October of 2002, thought it was not a vote to go to war and that going to war in late March 2003 was a mistake or pre-mature, they had a perfect opportunity to come out in opposition to the war. They never did at that time which shows they did not feel that the Presidents use of military force in March 2003 was against or not consistent with the congressional resolution they had voted for in October 2002.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 03:45 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Well, since you don't know, they were to be placed there to defend against the threat of long range Iranian Ballistic missiles. The United States also has systems in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey which defend against short range and medium range ballistic missiles that could threaten those countries.

But none of these systems threaten the country with the largest ballistic missile force in the world, Russia.
Speaking of Russia, the advent of the Russian atomic bomb geatly dissuaded the US and Britain from using their new toys again. It kept NATO expansionism, war and aggression firmly in check post WW2.

An Iranian bomb will have the same effect - greatly altering the balance of power in the Middle East. That's what the US administration, whether under Bush or Obama, is concerned about, not a bomb being fired in the Middle East. If they were worried about that, they'd have disarmed Israel - a country with a track record of aggression against its neighbours, unlike Iran - long ago. They just don't want their client state and proxy in the Middle East being checkmated.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 03:46 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
More importantly, she and no other Democrats who voted for the October 13 resolution came out in opposition against the Bush administration as the war got under way in March 2003. If any of the Democrats who voted for the resolution in October of 2002, thought it was not a vote to go to war and that going to war in late March 2003 was a mistake or pre-mature, they had a perfect opportunity to come out in opposition to the war. They never did at that time which shows they did not feel that the Presidents use of military force in March 2003 was against or not consistent with the congressional resolution they had voted for in October 2002.

However, a number, such as John Edwards, subsequently admitted they were wrong to back the war.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:19 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 05:02 AM
OH MY GOD

NOT IRAQ

GLARRHGHHGHGH

Look! Expert commentary!

Quote:
Link

For nearly two decades, Israel and the U.S. have warned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the need to “do something” preemptively. With Ahmadinejad at the U.N., Gary Sick argues for a safer response.

President Eisenhower once remarked to his peripatetic Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, “Don’t do something, Foster, just stand there.” From all evidence, Dulles paid not the slightest attention to his boss’ injunction. And that is no surprise. The job description of a Washington policy adviser is never to “just stand there.” It is not in their DNA. Their job is solving problems. It is somehow slightly un-American to suppose that problems may at times have no solution or might best be alleviated by keeping hands off.

Iran has been a critical issue for the United States and Israel for a very long time. Seventeen years ago, in January 1992, the U.S. Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the House Republican Research Committee, asserted that there was a "98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two to three operational nuclear weapons.” That same month, Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that "Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb… (The nuclear threat) must be uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.” In that same year, Robert Gates, then director of the CIA, asked, "Is [Iran’s nuclear program] a problem today?" He answered, "Probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem." Three years later, a senior Israeli official declared: "If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."

Officially, both the United States and Israel now agree that Iran is unlikely to be able to produce a bomb until about 2013 or 2014—the same five-year window that was being predicted seventeen years ago in 1992.


For the better part of two decades, there have been cries of alarm that the United States must “do something” or else Iran would have an operational nuclear weapon within a few years. If these warnings of a “ticking clock” had been heeded, there would have been ample reason for the United States or Israel to go to war with Iran at almost any time. In fact, there have been as many serious predictions that a war was imminent and unavoidable as there have been false predictions about the timing of an Iranian bomb. Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker beginning in 2006, quoted many sources inside and outside the U.S. government who claimed that the Bush administration was preparing to attack Iran because of its nuclear policies. It now appears that Vice President Cheney, based on his own words in retirement, was in fact pressing for such an attack, but President Bush vetoed it.

In June 2008, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicted that Israel “will attack Iran” before January 2009 when the new U.S. president was sworn in, but apparently the Israeli leadership decided otherwise. Just a few weeks ago, retired Air Force general Chuck Wald on National Public Radio outlined a sustained bombing campaign against Iran that would last “weeks or months,” then added, “Now, does anybody in their right mind want to attack Iran? No, not a bit. But sometimes you've got to do things you don't like to do.” From the tone of his voice, the prospect of an attack did not seem to dismay him, and he has gone on to write a series of op-eds pushing the military option.

These statements are admirably clear in recognizing that the end game in any concerted pressure campaign against Iran is war. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatened “crippling sanctions” to be imposed on Iran if it failed to cooperate with U.S. diplomatic efforts. That phrase was later echoed by Israeli prime minister Netanyahu during his visit to Germany, and it is expected to be a major focus of the U.S. Congress starting in September. Iran does not have sufficient refinery capacity to meet all its gasoline needs, and the Congress is expected to press for actions that would attempt to curtail or block such imports into Iran. A prohibition of Iranian petroleum imports—most likely restricted to the United States and perhaps some of its European allies since Russia, China and even many of Iran’s allies (think Venezuela) and immediate neighbors (think Iraq) are unwilling to cooperate—can only be truly enforced by a blockade, which is an act of war.

The perpetual plea for U.S. foreign policy to “do something” needs to be changed; we would be better served by adopting the physicians creed: “First, do no harm.”

With Iranian president Ahmadinejad in New York spouting his usual venom and with negotiations scheduled to begin with Iran on October 1 over a package of issues, including their nuclear plans, it is the right time to stop and think about where we are, how we got to this point, and where we want to go.

First, beware of panic cries of ticking time bombs. The world may have more time and more bargaining leverage than is generally supposed. Iran has proceeded very slowly with its nuclear program. If Iran had proceeded at the same speed as Pakistan (which had far fewer resources than Iran), it would have had a bomb test and a deliverable nuclear weapon more than decade ago. Iran has chosen to remain in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, over the objections of its own hardliners—the only proto-nuclear state to have done so. Iran has repeatedly and formally declared at the highest levels that the production, storage or use of a nuclear weapon was contrary to Islam and not in Iran’s national interest—most recently earlier this week by Supreme Leader Khamenei.

These facts do not solve the problem—countries can change their minds or their timetables—but these often neglected realities do provide something to work with in serious negotiations. A senior U.S. diplomat recently put the problem to me in the form of three hard questions:

• What if Iran gets a full nuclear fuel cycle?
• What if they get a nuclear weapon?
• Is it possible that Iran and the United States could ever again develop a level of trust that would permit them to become partners rather than antagonists?

For all practical purposes, much as we may dislike it, Iran has already answered the first question. Iran has already mined and enriched uranium, though it has not yet fabricated the product into fuel rods that could be used in a nuclear power reactor, nor have they given any indication of building a reprocessing facility that would “mine” highly irradiated uranium and plutonium from spent fuel rods.

It is highly unlikely that any Iranian leader would give up the current nuclear capability. That was an objective of the shah, and it would no doubt be pursued even by opposition leaders such as Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi. The current mastery of the fuel cycle means that Iran is essentially independent of outside suppliers for its nuclear power plant(s). It also means, of course, that Iran has the basic capability to “break out,” i.e. to recycle its low enriched uranium (LEU) to weapons grade (roughly from 5 percent to more than 90 percent enrichment) and use that material to build a nuclear weapon. The amount of time it would take to go from LEU to weapons grade and then to a deliverable nuclear device is debatable but could require five years or more depending on the level of sophistication and preparation.

Iran currently has about enough LEU to be able to produce a single crude nuclear device. But in order to do so, it would either have to build a completely secret production line or else withdraw from the NPT, kick out the IAEA inspectors, and try to proceed. The more inspectors are on the ground (and Iran is presently the most inspected country under IAEA supervision), the less likely it is that a completely covert facility can be created. Use of the present enrichment facilities to produce bomb-grade uranium would certainly be noticed and reported. It is an early warning system.

If Iran has a known capacity to be able to build a bomb, its negotiating leverage is nearly as great as if it actually had one or two crude bombs in its possession. That calculation, we now know, was the shah’s strategy before the 1979 revolution; it is very likely the strategy of his successors. It maximizes influence and minimizes risk.

What if Iran got a bomb? Well, unless they buy one intact, the process of actually moving to weaponization is likely to be noticed, so one must ask what happens between the moment when they decide to proceed to a bomb and when they actually have it. That period, which is apt to be several years, would be the true case of the ticking time bomb, and that would be the moment for consideration of extreme pressure tactics, probably with very wide support in the international community. Iran knows this, and that is itself a disincentive for them to proceed.

The real purpose of negotiations, in my view, is to build a system of monitoring and inspections that will (1) provide maximum early warning of a potential future Iranian decision to “break out;” and (2) insure the maximum possible interval between that moment and the moment where Iran could actually have a bomb. Iran has said on several occasions that it is willing to accept such an enhanced inspection regime, but it will no doubt insist on a price. That, I think, is what the negotiations should be about.

Can the United States and Iran ever rebuild a sufficient level of confidence to be able to work together effectively on nuclear, regional or other issues? With the present regime in power, that is probably asking too much. The one bright spot, however, is that Ahmadinejad, despite all his swagger and bluster, is a secondary figure at best in the actual decision-making on major security policy. Any Iranian decisions taken in real negotiations will be taken by consensus. Based on everything we know, Ahmadinejad’s voice, however shrill, will be drowned out by the real architects of Iran’s foreign policy, whose primary interest is the national interest of the country as they see it. The real question is whether the clamor of domestic politics in both the United States and Iran will prevent the pragmatists on both sides from being heard.

Gary Sick served on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. He was the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis and is the author of two books on U.S.-Iranian relations.
I'm not surprised Iran wants a bomb. It's being a rational actor to believe that nuclear bombs help guarantee their government's security.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:19 PM   #50
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberBeaver View Post
Never said I agreed with that action either. But I will say that an airstrike and an all out invasion are two very different things.

You're right, the second one gets the job done.
__________________
HyperU2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:35 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperU2 View Post
You're right, the second one gets the job done.
You mean like this?

Iraq War Atrocities
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:36 PM   #52
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 08:02 AM
What, like propaganda? No I meant action.
__________________
HyperU2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:38 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperU2 View Post
What, like propaganda? No I meant action.
Go enlist!

Knock yourself out, chief!
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:38 PM   #54
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 08:02 AM
I already served TYVM.




These kids are fine therefore DU doesn't do anything. All we need are pictures right?
__________________
HyperU2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:40 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
I'm not surprised Iran wants a bomb. It's being a rational actor to believe that nuclear bombs help guarantee their government's security.
Agreed. It's a rational action and if I lived in Iran I'd certainly support my governments actions to defend the citizens from foreign aggressors.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:43 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperU2 View Post
I already served TYVM.

Reenlist! Your country needs you. This is no time for left wing peacnikery, as STING2 rightly reminds us.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:44 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperU2 View Post
All we need are pictures right?
A picture tells a thousand words. The version presented in your mainstream media is certainly incredibly sanitised.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 06:45 PM   #58
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Reenlist! Your country needs you. This is no time for left wing peacnikery, as STING2 rightly reminds us.
That's something I wrestle with every day.
__________________
HyperU2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 08:16 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:02 PM
Well, take care. But I'd be lying if I said I supported such a decision.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 01:01 AM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperU2 View Post
You're right, the second one gets the job done.


and it's only taken 6 years and 100,000+ dead Iraqis and the fact that the Sunnis are currently reloading and more chaos awaits.

thank you for your service, i appreciate your bravery. but this does not somehow justify a foolish military action pursued under deliberately falsified circumstance by a corrupt, radical, criminally negligent administration that has failed in nearly all aspects of governance. i absolutely reject the notion that there was somehow "no choice" but to invade in March of 2003. if you look closely, the war was timed to suit the GOP political calendar, and it was sold to the American people as, 1) Saddam's WMD's will kill YOU, and 2) it will be quick and the oil will pay for it all and we'll be greeted as liberators.

it was a lie then, it's a lie now, and thousands of Americans have died for it.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How likely do you view a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran before end 2008? financeguy Free Your Mind Archive 31 09-28-2007 09:10 AM
U.N. Sanctions on Iran......bark worse than bite? AchtungBono Free Your Mind Archive 10 12-28-2006 05:03 AM
iran doesnt back off on nuclear tech all_i_want Free Your Mind Archive 9 08-11-2005 11:10 PM
Bush Pushes for New Nukes sulawesigirl4 Free Your Mind Archive 26 07-10-2003 09:18 PM
nuke iraq till they bleed american Flag Pole Pear Free Your Mind Archive 214 02-08-2003 10:39 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com