Iran hiding Nuclear Facility

[MadelynIris]

Too bad we can't have a thread that actually discussed the subject.

 

[mobvok]

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."

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.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

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.

 

[financeguy]

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.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

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

 

[BoMac]

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?

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

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.

 

[BoMac]

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?

 

[INDY500]

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)

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.

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.

 

[financeguy]

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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!

 

[INDY500]

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.

 

[financeguy]

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

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.

 

[INDY500]

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.

 

[financeguy]

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.

Did I say the Soviets having nukes was the only factor? Er, no. I don't see what's so strange in suggesting both sides having nukes was a factor in deterrence.

 

[INDY500]

You certainly seem to be suggesting that the United States and later NATO could not be trusted as the sole superpower in a post WWII landscape and their militaristic imperialism and economic empire-building needed to be held-in-check by another international entity. Would that be correct? That those notorious "neo-cons" Henry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and JFK couldn't be trusted with the world's only "bomb."

 

[financeguy]

You certainly seem to be suggesting that the United States and later NATO could not be trusted as the sole superpower in a post WWII landscape and their militaristic imperialism and economic empire-building needed to be held-in-check by another international entity. Would that be correct?

Absolutely. That is exactly what I am suggesting, and I don't see why it's such a controversial statement. I sincerely hope you are not a supporter of world government.

That those notorious "neo-cons" Henry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and JFK couldn't be trusted with the world's only "bomb."

Of course they couldn't. Who could? Would you trust yourself with the world's only nuke?

 

[Irvine511]

FG, in aggregate terms, do you feel as if the government of the United States treats it's citizens well? same question in regards to the Soviet Union, and for Iran.

 

[financeguy]

FG, in aggregate terms, do you feel as if the government of the United States treats it's citizens well? same question in regards to the Soviet Union, and for Iran.

I have absolutely no idea. I have never lived in any of these countries. I find the question surprising. Although, I don't think a government which sends enormous numbers of its young men and women to fight in foreign wars for no clear objective can be said to be treating its citizens well, for a start.

As a conservative libertarian, of course, I regard government as a service provider, which essentially should be treated as a business and restricted, in so far as possible, to areas that the private sector cannot service. That said, anyone who has examined the issue for more than a nanosecond will see that the citizens of the former Soviet Union were better off under the Soviet Union than the anti-free market oligarchy which immediately followed it.

 

[INDY500]

Absolutely. That is exactly what I am suggesting, and I don't see why it's such a controversial statement. I sincerely hope you are not a supporter of world government.

Of course they couldn't. Who could? Would you trust yourself with the world's only nuke?

Then what stopped us after the surrender of Japan in 1945?

The Soviets suffered military and civilian casualties of over 20 million and were an economic basketcase, Europe was in ruins and we alone had the atomic bomb? Who was going to stop us, Canada?
No, instead we packed up "our toys," came home to our best gals and actually began rebuilding the countries we just pounded into submission?

No I'm afraid the Unites States is a complete failure as an imperialistic empire and believe it or not, no tanks or battleships were required for the "occupation" of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959.

 

[Kieran McConville]

In all fairness, the window in which the US was the only one with The Bomb was a pretty brief one. Five years, at most? Five very preoccupied years, I would add.

 

[INDY500]

anyone who has examined the issue for more than a nanosecond will see that the citizens of the former Soviet Union were better off under the Soviet Union than the anti-free market oligarchy which immediately followed it.

The tens of millions of Soviets citizens killed under the communist regimes of the 20th century might rebut that.

 

[financeguy]

The tens of millions of Soviets citizens killed under the communist regimes of the 20th century might rebut that.

I meant to say, in the period of time immediately proceeding the disastrous shock doctrine period.

 

[Irvine511]

I have absolutely no idea. I have never lived in any of these countries. I find the question surprising. Although, I don't think a government which sends enormous numbers of its young men and women to fight in foreign wars for no clear objective can be said to be treating its citizens well, for a start.

i find your equivocation between the three societies surprising, and as i've said before, fashionable and convenient.

you can call me imperialist or what have you, but i find the idea of Iran with a nuke far, far more concerning than the USSR's arsenal. there's no mutual deterrence, and i'd rather be dealing with (nominally) atheist totalitarianists rather than the religious who are preoccupied not with this life but with the next.

i'm certainly not a "USA, right or wrong" bloviator by any stretch of the imagination, and i find most of the neocons as terrifying as you do, but to say that there's somehow no difference between the goals of these three societies is really bad thinking, imho.

 

[INDY500]

I meant to say, in the period of time immediately proceeding the disastrous shock doctrine period.

Let me rephrase Irvine's question this way.

At which point in time or history would you say it was easier to practice libertarianism in Russia than in the United States?

And that Shock Doctrine stuff sounds like crap to me. If you believe in capitalism and free-markets why would responding and rebuilding after disasters be any different? What is your feeling about "price gouging." Exploitive or a quick way to get needed materials and supplies to an area through supply and demand?

 

[anitram]

That said, anyone who has examined the issue for more than a nanosecond will see that the citizens of the former Soviet Union were better off under the Soviet Union than the anti-free market oligarchy which immediately followed it.

I think that is probably a fair statement and could apply to a number of former Soviet bloc countries. The levels of corruption, and the growing gaps between the classes in many of these places are making them absolutely awful places to live with rather dim futures.

Having said that, I remember living in a communist Eastern European country and I also very well remember that we all knew it was a total shit system and the number one and main preoccupation of every citizen aside from the ruling communists atop the party was how the eff to get out of there. America was a dream and an idea that we'd have given limbs for...western Europe as well, to a lesser degree. 20 years later I know that the US wasn't the paradise I thought it was, and our society wasn't the hell either, but I can guarantee you that if we were given a choice back then, it would have taken about no time to make it.

I do realize though that the USSR itself and apparently China as well did not feel the same way since their media did a much better brainwashing job than ours did. We all knew that it was bullshit, but my Chinese friends have told me that they really did believe that in America people starved to death and were terribly unhappy.

 

[financeguy]

Let me rephrase Irvine's question this way.

At which point in time or history would you say it was easier to practice libertarianism in Russia than in the United States?

And that Shock Doctrine stuff sounds like crap to me. If you believe capitalism and free-markets why would responding and rebuilding after disasters be any different? What is your feelings about "price gouging." Exploitive or a quick way to get needed materials and supplies to an area?

I don't really understand what you are saying here. Surely you are aware that the disposal of former state assets of the Soviet Union was criminally mismanaged, by virtue of the entire wealth being placed in the hands of seven to nine oligarchs? If not, I can recommend an excellent documentary on the subject.

In theory, I'd probably have agreed with Shock Doctrine if it was done properly.

 

[Bluer White]

As I understand it, nobody helped out the U.S. as it was fighting for its independence.

The French did.

 

[Irvine511]

The French did.

German mercenaries as well.