After Neoconservatism

I've got a lot of respect for you both, but I pointedly stayed away from government websites on this issue. What I find amazing is the belief that Iran is not even trying to develop nuclear weapons. WADR, Ken, it seems foolish to trust the mullahs when the indications so strongly point to their intentions. I disagree with you both re Iraqi WMD though you're not alone on that but the sources I posted aren't government sources. I'm not sure what evidence you would accept. And 300 underground sites sure looks to me like something more than trying to develop nuclear power.

 

So if I said, ftr, that you were right, and it's already been noted that I sad Ken was right, I'd have to conclude that youo both can't be right. And upon saying that, someone would probably tell me that I'm also right.

 

I have heard it reported that if Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons that it would take them at least five years to produce one from where they currently are in the process. If this is true, it would tell me that we still have more time for diplomacy before trying to launch another invasion into another Middle Eastern country.

 

Yet there have also been admissions from Israeli intelligence and the IAEA itself, that if Iran has procured equipment that we still have yet to discover, they could be just a few months away. That doesn't mean that they are that close, but that the margin of uncertainty is great.

 

Johnv,

You're right.


I think.


Run that by me again?

 

Ken,

What evidence would you be willing to accept that Iran is in fact attempting to develop or seeking to develop nuclear weapons? What would it take for you to believe that?

 

I am curious:
how many "true" Neoconservatives are on the board? By "true" I mean that the person has read anything by Irving Kristol, etc.?

That is an honest question - not an attempt to antagonize.

Regards,
BiR

 

Certainly no antagonism taken. I don't consider myself a "true" neo-con, though I probably am in terms of foreign policy. Their roots are too strongly in behavioralist poli sci and seem to ignore the "transcendence", Burkean/Russell Kirkian roots of conservatism. I have read some things by Irving Kristol (mostly articles in the lamentably expired Public Interest) but I suspect you were unpurposely generalizing in using that as a criteria.

[ February 24, 2006, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

From the IAEA resolution of Februrary 4 (available HERE):

Recalling Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement and the absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes resulting from the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear
activities, the nature of those activities and other issues arising from the Agency’s verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002,

Expressing serious concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, and agreeing that an extensive period of confidence-building is required from Iran

Expresses serious concern that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme, including the fact that Iran has in its possession a document on the production of uranium metal hemispheres, since, as reported by the Secretariat, this process is related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components; and, noting that the decision to put this document under Agency seal is a positive step, requests Iran to maintain this document under Agency seal and to provide a full copy to the Agency

Deeply regrets that, despite repeated calls from the Board for the maintaining of the suspension Deeply regrets that, despite repeated calls from the Board for the maintaining of the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities which the Board has declared essential to addressing outstanding issues, Iran resumed uranium conversion Activities at its Isfahan facility on 8 August 2005 and took steps to resume enrichment activities on 10 January 2006

Calls on Iran to understand that there is a lack of confidence in Iran’s intentions in seeking to develop a fissile material production capability against the background of Iran's record on safeguards as recorded in previous Resolutions, and outstanding issues; and to reconsider its position in relation to confidence-building measures, which are voluntary, and non legally binding, and to adopt a constructive approach in relation to negotiations that can result in increased confidence

Gosh, I'm glad Ken isn't worried about Iran's intentions. I feel better already.

 

Right you are, FTR.
I used Kristol as an example, as he is widely regarded as the father of neoconservatism.

Hope all is well with you and yours,
BiR

 

According to PNAC Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. were all targets of the Bush administration long before the talks of WMD's, nuclear weapon, the war on terror, etc. These Middle Eastern nations have to be invaded and changed from the inside out in order for Bush to get his MEFTA plan pushed through. They have shown us with Iraq how they can use scare tactics to get the public and Congress support, they will use those same tactics to invade Iran.

The globalist Neo-cons are all about moving us closer to a one world government to help increase the size of their bank accounts!

 

Ken,

I understand their equivocations, but my point with the quotes is that even the IAEA isn't nearly as confident as you seem to be that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons.


BiR,

It's been a while since I've anything by him, though. I recently purchased The Neo Con Reader and am interested in what they have to say.

Take care, my friend.


Actually, JG, I haven't read anything about invading Iran, and certainly not North Korea, and, I don't think, Syria. I can't speak to Syria, but the others, I believe are clear threats to us and our interests and allies. And all four have (had, in the case of Iraq) supported terrorists. People who blow up buses full of civilians and children are nasty and should be exterminated like the vermin they are.

 

Right you are JGrubbs and Zbigniew Brzezinski speaks in parallel terms while laying out the real plan in 1997.

 

I have never heard of Irving Kristol.

But , of course, you have indicated more than once that you believe I'm lying when I say I don't listen to Limbaugh.

But you listen to Limbaugh and probably read Kristol also. So the answers to the questions really mean nothing at all.