Iran Nuclear Row 'Not a Crisis'

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by KenH, Feb 2, 2006.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bomb em' and bomb em' now! Did you know that the Iran hostages have said the this president was one of their interrogators? He is a terrorist, we do not want him to have the bomb. Even if we get a regime change they will still go after the bomb. Bomb the nuke production factories now, don't waste another minute. Nepolian said, "know your enemy". If you know this enemy, you will know that the UN is a waste of time and this should be stopped by military means now.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt bombing Iran would prove to any more beneficial than Israel's bombing of Iraq's facilities in 1981 - LINK.

    Those who want military action against Iran need to realize that the only way to permanently stop Iran's nuclear program would be to invade Iran and take over it's government as we did in Iraq. It would probably require 1-1.5 million of our troops to pull it off which would require starting a military draft. It would also probably cost 100,000 U.S. casualties to pull it off. It would also probably require a 25% income tax surcharge to pay for it.

    How many of you who want military action are willing to see our nation pay that cost - not in theory but in real blood and treasure?
     
  4. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    I question all of those assertions. We do not need ground forces, beyond som SF recon. Air attacks would disrupt the production cycle, and that's enough for now. No ground forces.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    EL, please read the article that I linked in my second post. You bombing advocates need a history lesson from 1981.
     
  6. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree that we would need ground forces. The infrastructure need to enrich uranium and build bombs is fantastically complex and large. We should be able to shut them down with bombs with ease.

    But the bottom line is, if they set of the bomb in America, which is a matter of when not if, we will be sending ground troops all over the globe.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Yeah, like we were told that fixing up Iraq would be no problem at all. :rolleyes:

    2) How do you live with such pessimism? How do you even get out of bed in the morning?

    3) We don't have enough troops to send all over the world. It would be better for you warmongers to show a more wisdom and less hubris in dealing with this stituation.

    Matthew 5:9 (KJV)
    Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
     
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    So how do like the emphasis so far Ken, sickening once your eyes are opened isn't it? I hate to be the one to say I told you so but PNAC told you so.

    "Saddam was just the immediate justification for a wider conflict in the middle east." Are you begining to get the picture now?

    They tell you what their plans are knowing 99% of the people won't bother to read them and those that do can be easily marginalized by labeling them kooks, liberals, unpatriotic or whatever.
     
  9. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Yeah, like we were told that fixing up Iraq would be no problem at all.

    2) How do you live with such pessimism? How do you even get out of bed in the morning?

    3) We don't have enough troops to send all over the world. It would be better for you warmongers to show a more wisdom and less hubris in dealing with this stituation.


    1) You were never told that. Be honest, Ken.

    2) I am a beleiver, that's how. But that is just realism. Being an ostrich is not a better alternative.

    3) When the bomb goes off, because you optimist would not deal with reality, we and our allys will reinstate the draft and send troops all over the globe.

    Blessed are the sheep, for they shall provide for the slaughter!
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    1)
    SOURCE

    2)
    Does this realism include any reality at all?

    3)
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I was. Did you not follow the news back in early 2003?
     
  12. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not recall ANY member of the Bush Admin telling us that "fixing" Iraq would be easy. In fact, I remember being warned that it would cost lives, money, and time. I also remember polls suggesting that even if the invasion cost 20,000 dead (a very unrealistically high number), that the majority of Americans thought it was worth it.
    The two misjudgements I recognize are the availability of Iraqi oil sales generating enough revenue to support reconstruction (distribution network was/is too exposed to disruption), and the (fickle) support of the American public -- driven by a constant barrage of misleading, partisan misinformation being spewed by the Democrats, for political purposes.

    In any event, worthwhile and necessary operations MUST be pursued, regardless of the cost. Stopping Iran is one of them.
     
  13. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    See also the IAEA report specifically referring to nuclear weapons activity by Iran -- IAEA Report: Iran Working on 'Nuclear Weapons'

    WASHINGTON -- As the Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte was telling a Congressional panel on Thursday that Iran's nuclear program was "a reason for immediate concern," the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna circulated an internal report that referred to evidence that Iran was pursuing a "nuclear weapons" program.

    It was the first time the IAEA has ever publicly referred to nuclear weapons activity in Iran, Western diplomats in Vienna told Newsmax.

    The four-page report, prepared by the director of the IAEA's Safeguards Division, Ollie Heinonen, was a "bold departure" from earlier reports, one diplomat said, because it "explicitly referred twice to nuclear weapons" activity in Iran.

    The report "raises new questions pointing to a military dimension" in Iran's nuclear programs, "including the fabrication of nuclear weapons components and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle," the diplomat added.
     
  14. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    SOURCE
     
  15. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I was. Did you not follow the news back in early 2003? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't recall being told that, but if I were, I would have never believed it. But you know the war part was easy, the occupation is hard. And yet we accomplished all of this with less than 3000 casualties- Napoleon or Eisenhower would say that was easy.
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    After today with the addition of the White House memo the Downing street memos , PNAC documents, the lack of WMD's and other evidence, and the government's proven past tendencies to use problem reaction solution it's looking more and more like those less than 3,000 casualties not counting the disabled and mental injuries and the 20,000 to 30,000 Iraqi civilian dead and wounded have died and been mamed because of a set of premeditated lies Bunyon.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    So far.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. . This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as 'coalition partners' to convince the Washington establishment that we're right."

    - Ken Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board

    Washington Post, February 13, 2002, p. A27
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I posted that article on page one Ken. Here's the link. Seems like Rumsfeld said something to that effect also.
     
  20. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    How long did you have to search to find that quoate by some unknown guy in the bowels of the pentegone. I don't think many folks were listening to him way back when.

    Ponch, I think going into Iraq was justified before 9/11. We had no choice afterwards.
     

Share This Page

Loading...