Iran hiding Nuclear Facility - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-27-2009, 11:04 AM   #61
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Too bad we can't have a thread that actually discussed the subject.
__________________

__________________
MadelynIris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 02:53 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 08:41 PM
Quote:
Gates On Iran: 'There Is No Military Option That Does Anything More Than Buy Time'

On CNN's State of the Union this morning, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates addressed both the escalating situation in Iran -- where recent revelations of a secret nuclear site and the testing of short-range missiles have raised tensions leading up to this week's meetings with Iran -- and the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

Gates said the U.S. has been watching Iran's secret nuclear site for "at least a couple years" and that there is "no doubt that this is an illicit nuclear facility."

"If they wanted it for peaceful purposes, there's no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it," Gates said.

So what can the U.S. do about it? Gates said there's still "a pretty rich list" of sanction possibilities but that "the reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time."
Quote:
The only way you end up not having a nuclear capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons.
On Afghanistan -- where top U.S. commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal wants more troops to try and turn around a worsening, unpopular war -- Gates emphasized that he is "absolutely" confident in McChrystal, but stopped short of explicitly endorsing his call for tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops.

Gates also offered praise to President Obama, saying the President's Afghanistan strategy is "the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s."

That's a surprising statement, especially since Gates served in the Bush administration. He explained that under Bush, "we were fighting a holding action" in Afghanistan.

"We were very deeply engaged in Iraq," Gates said, adding that "we were too stretched to do more."

Gates will also appear later this morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
Sounds like we're either going all-in with regime change or we need to learn to deal with Iran.

Of course, I don't think Mousavi or any of the "good guys" wants a dramatic nuclear change, either. Perhaps we could establish some sort of colonial governor of Iran, until such a time when the populace has been sufficiently re-educated to select leaders we agree with.
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 07:11 PM   #63
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Who said Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected leader with public approval? Those allegations of massive voting fraud and massive public protests don't mean a thing huh.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 07:24 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
Who said Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected leader with public approval? Those allegations of massive voting fraud and massive public protests don't mean a thing huh.
Are we talking about Bush or Ahmadinejad now? Allegations of voting fraud, whether true or not, are not the business of America. It is an internal matter of Iran.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 07:56 PM   #65
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Are we talking about Bush or Ahmadinejad now? Allegations of voting fraud, whether true or not, are not the business of America. It is an internal matter of Iran.
I don't like the isolation strategy and staying out of everyone elses business. That in part led to World War II. America has a responsibilty to help out other countries around the world. I feel really sorry for the poor Iranians who want a good democratically elected leader but can't get one, and when they stand up for themselves they are mercilessly beat down
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:04 PM   #66
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,661
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
I don't like the isolation strategy and staying out of everyone elses business. That in part led to World War II. America has a responsibilty to help out other countries around the world. I feel really sorry for the poor Iranians who want a good democratically elected leader but can't get one, and when they stand up for themselves they are mercilessly beat down
Not saying you're right or wrong, but why do you think it's America's responsibility at all?
__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:14 PM   #67
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Not saying you're right or wrong, but why do you think it's America's responsibility at all?
We all live in this world, and people should help each other out. If America is the strongest nation in the world, it also bears the responsibilty of helping others.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:30 PM   #68
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,661
Local Time: 12:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
We all live in this world, and people should help each other out. If America is the strongest nation in the world, it also bears the responsibilty of helping others.
As I understand it, nobody helped out the U.S. as it was fighting for its independence. They fought it themselves, and look what it achieved over time. Why not allow other countries to do the same?
__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:31 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
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.
That, to say the least, is a unique take on the Cold War. The Soviet's arms build-up being all that stopped the row of NATO Aggression Dominoes from falling all around the globe. I should say, unique outside the pages of Pravda or Time magazine (who named Gorbachev Man Of The Decade for the 80's)
Quote:
An Iranian bomb will have the same effect - greatly altering the balance of power in the Middle East.
What about the balance of sanity? Seems all the genocidal rhetoric is found solely on the Atomic Ayatollahs side of the ledger.
Quote:
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.
You may be fooled by the shell game Iran plays by outsourcing state-sponsored terrorism in the form of the Lebanese group Hezbollah, Hamas in Palestine and Syria. But fortunately most of the world is not.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:43 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
What about the balance of sanity? Seems all the genocidal rhetoric is found solely on the Atomic Ayatollahs side of the ledger. .
That is completely and utterly incorrect.

Quote:
Norman Podhoretz, their godfather, is a former leftist who has made an ideological U-Turn. In the September issue of Commentary, he calls for en masse regime change in the Middle East. Podhoretz's list of the "axis of evil" goes beyond the three countries cited in President Bush's State of the Union speech, and includes Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, the Palestinian National Authority, Saudi Arabia and Syria. He wants the US to unilaterally overthrow these regimes in the Arab world and replace them with democracies cast in the Jeffersonian mold.
Quote:
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, notes on the magazine's web site that if terrorists from Muslim countries detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States, the US should launch a nuclear attack on Islam's holiest city, Mecca, in Saudi Arabia. Lowry justifies this outrageous proposal by portraying it as a deterrent to terrorist attacks, believing that Muslim militants would not want to risk the destruction of their holiest site.

Professor Elliot Cohen is the most influential neocon in academe. From his perch at John Hopkins, Cohen refers to the war against terrorism by a chilling name: World War IV (citing the Cold War as WWIII). His viewpoint is diametrically opposed to that of the distinguished historian of war, Sir Michael Howard, who has cautioned that the fight against terrorism is not even a war, let alone a world war. Cohen claims America is on the good side in this war, just like it has been in all prior world wars, and the enemy is militant Islam, not some abstract concept of "terrorism." In his view, Afghanistan was merely the first campaign in WWIV, and several more are likely to follow.
Ahmad Faruqui: The Apocalyptic Vision of Neo-Conservative Ideologues

Quote:
Military . Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi Army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.
Charles Krauthammer - The Tehran Calculus - washingtonpost.com
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:47 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That, to say the least, is a unique take on the Cold War. The Soviet's arms build-up being all that stopped the row of NATO Aggression Dominoes from falling all around the globe. I should say, unique outside the pages of Pravda or Time magazine (who named Gorbachev Man Of The Decade for the 80's)
So, in other words, when you say unique, what you really mean is "does not correspond with accepted neo-'conservative' analysis".
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:49 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
We all live in this world, and people should help each other out. If America is the strongest nation in the world, it also bears the responsibilty of helping others.
Neocons are getting all soft and sentimental these days!
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:53 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:41 PM
You simply can't compare regime change to "wiping a country off the map" and you certainly can't compare magazine editors and highly-perched professors to the president and religious rulers of a nation currently thumbing its collective nose in open defiance at the rest of the world.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 08:56 PM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
You simply can't compare regime change to "wiping a country off the map" and you certainly can't compare magazine editors and highly-perched professors to the president and religious rulers of a nation currently thumbing its collective nose in open defiance at the rest of the world.

You absolutely can. We have learned from the Iraq misadventure that regime change simply cannot be accomplished without mass murder.

BTW, love the 'wiping Israel off the map' mistranslation canard once again. That old chestnut.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
and you certainly can't compare magazine editors and highly-perched professors to the president and religious rulers of a nation currently thumbing its collective nose in open defiance at the rest of the world.
If they're influential magazine editors and professors with strong influence in government, at least under the previous administration, then the comparison is valid.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2009, 09:11 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
So, in other words, when you say unique, what you really mean is "does not correspond with accepted neo-'conservative' analysis".
Wait, let me guess. The Warsaw Pact and Iron Curtain, through their deterrence, prevented WW III -- and the Berlin Wall was built to keep West Germans from escaping into East Germany.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 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 11:41 PM.


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