Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The President's Speech on Iraq (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The President's Speech on Iraq
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ DaveS:
quote:
Ed, I can't continue with this discussion. We're both entitled to our differing opinions, but you and I live in different worlds with completely different sets of facts. You even attack my oil and duct tape analogies because they are less appropriate than the water and finish line analogies you threw in to explain how things really are! Gimme a break!
I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I merely challenged it based on its factualness. I can understand why you might get mad, once you realized that it's missing a fact or two.


@ Jesse:
quote:
When it's easier to invent definations for the word "region" than to admit having casually overstated ones case, there isn't much talking left to do.
The Definition of Region.

Do you see ANYTHING in there that forces me to accept the definition of the region that you were providing? In my mind, when I spoke of the region, I wasn't thinking of Turkey. I don't consider them the threat. As to Egypt, signing a treaty with Israel might make the nation less likely to declare war, but it cannot necessarily change the attitude of its peoples. Or have you forgotten already that an Egyptian president was killed because he dared make peace with Israel?

Once again, to engage with you on that point would have been to engage in bickering.

quote:
The truth is, both our situation and that of Israel could be made much more secure in a matter of weeks through a little sensible diplomacy,
Yea, diplomacy has worked so well so far... It stopped Hezballah from invading and capturing Israeli soldiers and the war that followed. It stopped Hamas recruiting suicide bombers and blowing up Israeli civilians.

BTW, you do realize that it's been a while since we last heard of any suicide bombers against Israel, don't you? Why is that, I wonder? Was it diplomacy? Or was it our deposing Saddam which cut off the money supply to would-be bombers?

Diplomacy indeed.

quote:
but I guess a Good War hallows any cause.
Good wars are wars that have ended well. This one hasn't ended yet and won't end, even after we pull out. It started ages ago and will only end after someone gets a good "thumping."

Ed.

Added attribution. Edited grammar.

[ January 25, 2007, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ED, your dismissal of diplomacy is so reflective of the Bush administration's arrogance. If Bush hadn't brushed off Iran in 2003, when they offered to put on the table the recognition of Israel, the end of their material support of Palestinian terrorists, and their cooperation with the US on peaceful nuclear technology. The US rejected the offer for talks because they favored a policy of regime change in Iran (Washington Post).

As another example of the possibilities of diplomacy, the de facto end of the Second Intifada in Israel was credited by many observers to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (others credit Arafat's death).

Many of our problems in the Middle East come from the attitude that our Muslim enemies hate us unconditionally and can't be reasoned with. Why is Iran so unreasonable to assume we want to destroy them when we spurn their negotiation efforts and, just recently, send additional carrier groups to the gulf in an effort to intimidate them?

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ED?

Sadat was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood, which had also tried to kill him in the midst of the Yom Kippur War.

Israel isn't the center of everyones world, or the sole reason any Arab has done anything since 1948.


Killing Saddam didn't cut off the cash supply to suicide bombers, Iran is still funneling money right in. Israel finally developed some sense and built a wall, one they should have built on the actual border, but it worked.

Suicide Bombings started long before Saddam offered cash to the bombers heirs.

Your view of the world is completely beyond me, and seems to reflect a very limited understanding of the nature of the various conflicts in the middle east. It seems that you offer only rationalizations for a war you desire and can't provide much factual information or remotely objective analysis.

Edited to add

I would suggest reading popular Israeli newspapers.

[ January 25, 2007, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
ED, your dismissal of diplomacy is so reflective of the Bush administration's arrogance. If Bush hadn't brushed off Iran in 2003, when they offered to put on the table the recognition of Israel, the end of their material support of Palestinian terrorists, and their cooperation with the US on peaceful nuclear technology.

[DOH] Given that they'd just taken advantage of and broken their previous agreement regarding nuclear development, your complaint makes Chaimberlain look like Churchill.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a continuum of events, but ceasing diplomacy altogether was an overreaction, one typical of the "Bush Doctrine".
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete -- I wasn't aware that Iran violated any agreements regarding its nuclear activities. What agreement did they break?

(I'm not trying to get you to do my research for me, but I'd appreciate it if you could give me some details to use as a jumping board.)

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he's referring to the IAEA August 2003 report(pdf). From GlobalSecurity.org:
quote:
There remain significant such open question related to Iran's enrichment program. The 26 August 2003 IAEA report provides information making clear Iran has consistently misled the Agency about its enrichment program.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the documents, Dave. But it is from the summer of 2003, while Iran reportedly sent its proposal in the spring, shortly after we invaded Iraq.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yup, there is little doubt that they have misled the IAEA.

There is also little doubt that invading their neighbor while refusing to talk to them scared the be-Isa out of em and provided plenty of incentive to get crackin on the refining.

There is absolutely no doubt, at all, that the massive increase in world oil prices which was largely a result of said invasion gave Iran far more financial resources with which to persue a nuclear program.

The raw truth is that we don't fully know what the heck they may or may not have right now.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TCB

No, my problem with diplomacy has to do with a country that calls for the destruction of Israel and is attempting to gain power and influence in the region. I'm as willing to negotiate with them as I am with giving a robber the keys to my house. Or to let a pedophile babysit my child. To let them have their way would be idiocy.


@ Jesse:
quote:
Sadat was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood, which had also tried to kill him in the midst of the Yom Kippur War.
Where did I say otherwise, Jesse?

quote:
Israel isn't the center of everyones world, or the sole reason any Arab has done anything since 1948.
Where did I say otherwise, Jesse?

I think that part of the problem we are having with this conversation is that you are making a lot of assumptions that aren't even a part of my thought process.

quote:
Your view of the world is completely beyond me, and seems to reflect a very limited understanding of the nature of the various conflicts in the middle east. It seems that you offer only rationalizations for a war you desire and can't provide much factual information or remotely objective analysis.
I can make that same claim about you, since you appear to be ignore certain facts, like the one that Iran has be trying to kill us through terrorism since the 70s. Or the declaration of us as "the Great Satan." Or the calls for the destruction of Israel and their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

To draw on a quote from the link I provided: "My main lesson [as a holocaust survivor] is that if somebody tells you he`s going to exterminate you, believe him."

Are you really willing to gamble million's of lives on the chance, however likely, you might be right? I'm not. As long as Iran continues to "talk their talk" I'm more than willing to "block their walk."

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, Sadat wasn't killed for making peace with Israel. One of the assasins screamed "I have killed Pharoh". Pharoh is the same guy in Islamic and Jewish tradition.

I don't ignore any of those things. The Soviet Union was dedicated to the destruction of Capitalism the world over ... and we still talked.

Syria has commited every evil Iran has, and yet they have offered Israel a workable peace, something that never could have happened if Israel didn't have sense to talk to *anyone* willing to talk.

40 years of "covert" Diplomacy with Jordan, a Nation which for that entire period called for Israels destruction and refused to recognize it's existance, resulted in a peace that has now lasted for 13 years.

My lesson from 70 years of Soviet threats?

Don't believe all the tough talk politicians throw out.

The holocaust analogies simply don't cut it - The Nazi's weren't comitting mass suicide by attempting to anhilate Jews, and the Iranians would be.

Take the Syrian peace deal, demarcate the borders between Israel, Syria, and Lebanon, fracture the alliance beyond repair. See how much internal support Hezbollah has for agressive action when Israel publicly announces that it has what it now considers permenant borders which it will not expand beyond but will defend to the utmost.

We're both talking about gambling with millions of lives, Ed. We can continue to argue about which of us is more likely to be correct about the best course of action, but we're both rolling dice.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Jesse:
quote:
Ed, Sadat wasn't killed for making peace with Israel. One of the assasins screamed "I have killed Pharoh". Pharoh is the same guy in Islamic and Jewish tradition.
The Assassination of Anwar Sadat:
quote:
On October 6, the month after the crackdown, Sadat was assassinated [1] during the annual 6th October victory parade in Cairo. The assassination was carried out by army members who were part of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization. They opposed Sadat's negotiations with Israel, as well as his use of force in the September crackdown.
quote:
I don't ignore any of those things. The Soviet Union was dedicated to the destruction of Capitalism the world over ... and we still talked.

Syria has commited every evil Iran has, and yet they have offered Israel a workable peace, something that never could have happened if Israel didn't have sense to talk to *anyone* willing to talk.

40 years of "covert" Diplomacy with Jordan, a Nation which for that entire period called for Israels destruction and refused to recognize it's existence, resulted in a peace that has now lasted for 13 years.

My lesson from 70 years of Soviet threats?

Don't believe all the tough talk politicians throw out.

I don't. You, apparently, do. Don't confuse "not talking now" with "never talking."

quote:
The holocaust analogies simply don't cut it - The Nazi's weren't comitting mass suicide by attempting to anhilate Jews, and the Iranians would be.
They weren't? You mean, Hitler didn't commit suicide as a result of his actions? The Nazi party didn't fall out of grace and power as a result of their complicity with Hitler? A lot of Nazis never died because of WWII? There's committing suicide and then there's "committing suicide."

Furthermore, you make the assumption that the Muslim world believes they will committing suicide by destroying Israel. That's kinda like thinking that Hitler thought he was committing suicide by invading Poland. Or that Napoleon thought he was committing suicide by conquering Europe, etc, etc, etc...

quote:
Take the Syrian peace deal, demarcate the borders between Israel, Syria, and Lebanon, fracture the alliance beyond repair. See how much internal support Hezbollah has for agressive action when Israel publicly announces that it has what it now considers permenant borders which it will not expand beyond but will defend to the utmost.
I dunno, Jesse. How will Hezballah act, given their Manifesto:
quote:
The conflict with Israel is viewed as a central concern. This is not only limited to the IDF presence in Lebanon. Rather, the complete destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of Islamic rule over Jerusalem is an expressed goal.
Please don't turn a blind eye to the blatantly obvious.

quote:
We're both talking about gambling with millions of lives, Ed. We can continue to argue about which of us is more likely to be correct about the best course of action, but we're both rolling dice.
Yes, Jesse, and just as I pointed out to Adam, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and just as with him, you appear to be afraid of that ounce while denying the coming cure.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, my problem with diplomacy has to do with a country that calls for the destruction of Israel and is attempting to gain power and influence in the region.
That fact that Iran was willing to put recognition of Israel on the negotiating table tells me that they're not as committed to Israel's destruction as you believe. America would never be willing to negotiate with another country regarding, say, our right to free speech because it's one of our core values. The fact that Iran was willing to negotiate on Israel says that the destruction of Israel is not actually one of their core values.

Instead you cite Hezbollah's manifesto as proof that the "entire region" wants to see Israel destroyed. But by your definition of "region" I could say with equal validity that the entire region is committed to a two-state solution, citing Saudi Arabia, the PLO, and many others -- even Hamas acknowleges that Israel exists, but says it won't recognize it formally until a Palestinian state has been established.

Bush was unwilling to talk to Iran when we had a position of strength, after Iran saw us conquer in three weeks what they couldn't defeat in eight years, because he desired the bigger prize of regime change in Tehran. But now Bush's people say they can't talk with Iran because we're in a position of weakness, with an army bogged down in a civil war and an apparent lame duck commander-in-chief. If we're unwilling to negotiate when we're strong or when we're weak, we're just plain unwilling to negotiate.

The American view is that Iran is too irrational to negotiate with, but there's justification for the view that we're the ones being unreasonable, and that we desire war.

Finally, it's true that Hitler killed himself and many Germans died in the war. But even Iranian fanatics aren't so stupid as to think that seeing nuclear missiles hit every major city in Iran, killing millions of innocent Israeli Muslims, and poisoning the land of Palestine is worth "wiping Israel off the map". Iran's leaders know that Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Iran hit them first. Even if Israel couldn't, the US probably would.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very reasonable.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TCB

I don't think the USA or NATO would send a retalitory strike should Iran send nukes to Israel. Just as I do not think the USA or its NATO allied forces would ever strike at Iran's nuclear facilities should the Iranians finally tell the IAEA to get lost.

No one in the Unied States wants a nuclear war, or even to risk a nuclear war. Iran knows this. Iran will be a full fledged nuclear power with a ICBM delivery system possibly as early as he end of this summer. Unless Israel does something about it.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Egyptian Islamic Jihad is the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Ed.

quote:
as well as his use of force in the September crackdown.
and because he was a seccularist, and they are sworn to "restore" Islamic Governance to all of the Middle-East, which is their primary purpose for existance. They opposed Nasser just as strongly, and made more than one attempt on his life as well, and he sure didn't make peace with Israel.

quote:
They weren't? You mean, Hitler didn't commit suicide as a result of his actions? The Nazi party didn't fall out of grace and power as a result of their complicity with Hitler? A lot of Nazis never died because of WWII? There's committing suicide and then there's "committing suicide."
Of course, it wasn't seeking the eradication of Jews and Gypsies ect. that spelled the death of the Third Reich. The brutal truth is that the Western Powers collectively did not give a damn about that.


quote:
I dunno, Jesse. How will Hezballah act, given their Manifesto:
This relates to my statement about how a lessened percieved threat of Israeli designs on Southern Lebanon will reduce the support for Hezbollah inside of Lebanon how exactly?

Currently, an overwhelming majority of even Christian Lebanese believe them to be a legitimate resistance group. I said absolutely nothing about their intentions.

quote:
Yes, Jesse, and just as I pointed out to Adam, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" and just as with him, you appear to be afraid of that ounce while denying the coming cure.
Sell me then. Unless you're seeking to "cure" a surplus of able bodied young American males, sell me on what you're going to cure and how you're going to cure it. None of your posts so far have done that.

To the best of our knowledge, Irans largest cascade involves 162 centrifuges. It takes something over 16,000 to make weapons grade uranium.

However - We have no friggin idea whether or not Iran may have gotten hold of a loose nuke or two from one of the 'Stans. Not all of the Soviet Arsenal is accounted for.

You're pumping a "quick and easy" mantra again, and we all saw how that worked out last time.

Any serious atack on Iranian soil will not end quickly or easily. It will be the start of a long and bloody slog that will take years, and we will suffer several serious terrorist attacks at home and lose tens of thousands of fighting men in the ensuing battle.

Hezbollah *will* launch everything they have at Israel (which didn't manage to knock out even one katushka launcher last time), and Iran *will* launch everything they've got that can reach Israel...with the rest being launched at our men and women in the region.

We may reach the point that such an attack becomes necessary, but we aren't even close right now. If it does become necessary, I really hope you stop spinning fairy tales about easy it's going to be, and once again undermining the will of the American people by trying to delude them about the nature of the sacrafices they're going to have to make.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskull-

quote:
Iran will be a full fledged nuclear power with a ICBM delivery system possibly as early as he end of this summer.
Please tell me what you base this on.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskull-

quote:
Iran will be a full fledged nuclear power with a ICBM delivery system possibly as early as he end of this summer.
Please tell me what you base this on.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He had how many centrifuges when Iran officially declared that it not only had centrifuges but also had several hundred more than the IAEA suspected? He has a site for bunkered, inaccessible to IAEA inspectors or MOAB attack proof, centrifuges that has an estimated capacity of at least another 5-15,000 more centrifuges. The announced enrichment levels and progress that Iran officially declared as a result of having only 300 centrifuges to the IAEA. The shocking rapidity with which Iran began producing enriched uranium and plutonium suspectedly, at a rate of roduction and level of enrichment that the IAEA nearly garunteed would be beyond Iran's grasp for at least five more years.

Or the fact that they are getting another 3000 centrifuges online. According to their legislature.

Simple math. At a minnimum they have at least 1000 centrifuges running 24/7 to refine uranium hexafloride. More likely they have at least 3000 running right now. They could have as many as 18,000 running right now. If it is 1000 then they have enough for a bomb by 2008. 3000 get sthem to sometime this summer. 18,000 gets them enough for a bomb last december.

So do you go with IAEA estimates which have proven to be off by a large factor. Do you go with the estimate that takes into account what facilities they have built and how many centrifuges they have officially acknowledged as existing. Or do you take into account Iran's facilities, declared capacity, and the fact that their declared capacity has been hidden right under the IAEA for almost a decade, and the Iranians aren't liekly to start comming clean with exactly how many centrifuges they have running underground that they won't let the IAEA even see?

I'm going with the conservative of the three, summer.

Of course it will turn out to be another IAEA surprise, like pakistan, india and north korea.

That the Iranians have stated that they will negotiate anything other than giving up their nuclear program, I think I have a pretty good chance at being right.

Was off by about a year on the North Koreans. They turned out to be a little faster than I anticipated. I suspect the Iranians are a little better at nuclear aquisition compared to their sometimes missile trading partner. So while the cascade we "know about" contains only 160 odd members, why then do they have not one but two huge underground facilities for centrifuges? Why do they not let anyone in to inspect the sites? Why are they blocking IAEA people at the border? Where is the plutonium and highly enriched unranium coming from that the IAEA inspectors are finding?

And that is without even going into the rumor mill, which is a lot more frightening than even the IAEA has acknowledged as being the situation on the ground right now.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, last April you were arguing that Iran was as little as 120 days from having enough Uranium for a bomb and that we HAD to BTFOO them immediately. I think you're going to that well of hyper-alarm again, and again the situation on the ground doesn't merit an overwhelming response.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Judging by what I've heard and read Red is right. I too read about the 300 centrifuges Iran admitted to having.

The question is 'what are we going to do about it'?

I can't believe the Israelis will tolerate a nuclear Iran. Nor should we. Big stack poker. We better start playing it. We don't want to depend on MAD with mad countries like Iran and NK. We will long for the days of the Iron Curtain.

KE

[ January 29, 2007, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, why would we send men when one submarine could neutralize the entire country, and for damn sure a couple of nuclear weapons factories?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave

I think what I was arguing in April was that they had two physical sites, configured for up to 15,000 centrifuges each, and that back then we had just shockingly discovered that Iran not only had centrifuges running, but also had already begun processing Uranium. Under a worse case senario, back in April, assuming the Iranians had two full complements of centrifuges at both sites, running full tilt, a guestimate of less than 120 days to a bomb seems reasonable.

Now that we know what the Iranians have admited to having, 2008 is the maximal time frame.

I think MOAB strikes, were and still are the only answer. We did not bomb back last April. Has Iran ceased or even negotiated with the IAEA? Nope. Iran now has more publicly admitted centrifuges. Iran has more developed sites. And simple math suggests that it is indeed a matter of time before Iran gets a bomb. They already have the delivery system.

Once they have nuke #1, Middle East peace becomes a pipe dream, Israel is almost certainly doomed, and Europe ceases to be a functional player on the world stage.

Frankly I think they already have the weapon material, and they are just trying to get it all to work first time. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if the North Korea weapon had actually been an Iranian weapon.

Big picture, diplomacy is not working at all. Meanwhile Iran is working like all get out to produce the bomb materials. All they need is time, and each time they reveal that they have already far exceeded even the gloomiest IAEA estimates of Iranian ability, they are sending a very strong message militarilly and diplomaticly. They have demonstrated a capacity to avoid IAEA oversight, while establishing all the production components and capacities required to produce nuclear bombs on a large scale.

Bet they already have it, bet it was tested in North Korea, and bet they are working on a Mark II version, because the first time wasn't too good.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, do you know this or are you just speculating? I've read a number of assessment reports on the web from 2002 through the present, and I don't see any of them making as strong a case as you do. Uncertainty about what Iran has developed so far and what their expansion plans are outweigh the "worst case" projections. It would help me if you could refer me to one or two credible analyses that go as far as you do.

Edited to add:
quote:
Once they have nuke #1, Middle East peace becomes a pipe dream, Israel is almost certainly doomed, and Europe ceases to be a functional player on the world stage.
What happens to ME or world peace if we preemptively bomb Iran? Russia re-rises as our international counterweight, NK is "proven right" about us, China realizes they need to stiffen their military/diplomatic position, Pakistan turns its back on us, India puts additional effort into its weapons program, and the UN becomes powerless. Basically, the whole world goes into a frantic race to build new weapons and the US becomes even more isolated from even our most staunch allies. If some substantial part of that is the outcome of your idea to bomb Iran, would you still do it?

[ January 30, 2007, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thats what someone else said the last time I brought this up. So again I ask how about going to the IAEA web site for your self? Other people did , and found I wasn't making anything up.

Iran has admitted to having just somewhere north of 3000 centrifuges installed, has been less forthcomming on how many became operational, and when the opperations started. The addition of another 3000 centrifuges already in process, means the number of centrifuges that Iran had admited to that are functioning, and producing uranium refined to weapons/energy grade is at least 6001. Leaving in question the IAEA estimates as to other probable centrifuge sites.

Then again, I lost interest in the whole issue because apparently in order to discuss anything on Ornery anymore, you have to provide wiki links for absolutely everything. But for thse of you out there with short term or long term memory degradation, and can't remeber from one week to the next what the hell you heard or saw in a daily paper or newscast, the internet must be an amazing crutch.

Sorry Dave, it isn't meant directly at you. Just getting sick of every single thread on ornery boiling down to a tit for tat citation orgy. Check the IAEA site, and then I guess any news outlet of your choice. If CNN had the details last week, then it has to be everywhere by now. CNN hasn't broken a good story in years.

Trying hard not to be snippy.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, your posts are always such a bright ray of sunshine in my day [Smile]

Just to indulge my morbid curiosity... what exactly will happen if/when Iran finally proves that it has at least one nuke? You say Israel is doomed, but how exactly are things going to play out? What will be the blow by blow chain of events.

Also, what do you think the odds of an Israeli pre-emptive strike are? If I know the Israelis, they're not going to sit around and wait for Iran to have a nuke. The question is, what will they do? What CAN they do?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, NP on the snippy. I read the stories/reports on the IAEA site and ElBaradei's interview. It's not good news, but those alarm bells have been sounded before.

The other approach (that Bush is pursuing) to isolate Iran is having some effect. Europe is coming along with it hesitantly because they are understandably skeptical about our claims of the threat Iran poses because of our total screwup on Iraq. So it will take a lot more to persuade the world that war against Iran is necesssary than it might have years ago. It isn't yet time to strike out at Iran and won't be until the likelihood of them having and planning to use a bomb exceeds the likelihood of them not using it. IMO, rather than solving a problem politically, bombing Iran starts the next global war, and that one will last a generation and will be nuclear.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave

I'd say the isolate Iran/UN/IAEA approach has had zero results. The Iranians have not backed away from or scaled back their program. They have apparently accelerated it. The only progress made has been the IAEA report was completed, presented to the SC as evidence of outright Iranian violation, and the SC, under the rules of the NPT were forced to vote for sanctions against Iran. The sanctions however are being held off in the hopes that Iran will negotiate to end its potential weapon capacity. Something which Iran has flatly stated is not on the table.

So we completed the entire gamut of diplomacy, as advocated by many people, and gotten nothing to show for it except for an Iranian government that is commited to a nuclear program.

There is a very limited space of time before Iran goes nuclear. After they do, all the diplomacy in the world cannot get the world back to a pre event status quo. So now that diplomacy has failed utterly, do you simply wait for the Iranians to provide proof they are in the nuke club, or do you do nothing?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do answer rhetorical questions, so my answer is that your assumptions of where things are going and predictions for what will happen aren't yet solid, hence aren't actionable. That's the best I can come up with, but all it lacks to counterbalance your opinion is the force I use to state it. The world will change when/if Iran actually possesses a nuke, but it's a world that has 1000's of them already, many in unsavory hands. It's not a foregone conclusion what it will mean.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ TCB:
quote:
That fact that Iran was willing to put recognition of Israel on the negotiating table tells me that they're not as committed to Israel's destruction as you believe. America would never be willing to negotiate with another country regarding, say, our right to free speech because it's one of our core values. The fact that Iran was willing to negotiate on Israel says that the destruction of Israel is not actually one of their core values.
You ever play poker, TCB? The art of diplomacy is a lot like poker. Countries use their strengths and weaknesses to make bargains and agreements with each other. Have you ever gotten a really good hand in poker, like, let's say, a Royal Flush? A lot of people, when given such a hand, want to immediately raise the biggest stakes they can. They raise the pot to the maximum bet immediately. This is a big mistake as most other players, especially if they have weak hands, fold almost immediately in response and the player with the good hand gets considerably less than what he could have gotten. The best strategy is to raise the pot a little, but not enough to scare the other players so that they'll stay in the round. Play it just right and you can raise the pot significantly and still win.

What's this got to do with Iran and the destruction of Israel? It's very simple: it's a stupid move. By pursuing nukes and calling for their use to destroy a neighboring country while using that to negotiate is tantamount to blackmail. Most countries decide that this is a game the do not want to play. But, not only are the Iranians "raising the stakes higher than most nations are willing to tolerate," they're also not playing by the rules. So, the better analogy would be if I brought a gun to the poker game and threatened to take the pot if I lost.

Do you really want to play poker with someone who plays the game in that fashion? I sure don't.

quote:
Instead you cite Hezbollah's manifesto as proof that the "entire region" wants to see Israel destroyed. But by your definition of "region" I could say with equal validity that the entire region is committed to a two-state solution, citing Saudi Arabia, the PLO, and many others -- even Hamas acknowleges that Israel exists, but says it won't recognize it formally until a Palestinian state has been established.
Care full there, TCB, lest I accuse you of "straw manning" my argument. Read back, I didn't cite Hezballah's manifesto as proof. I cited SEVERAL manifestos and pointed to the media and the propaganda of the region as my proof.

quote:
Bush was unwilling to talk to Iran when we had a position of strength, after Iran saw us conquer in three weeks what they couldn't defeat in eight years, because he desired the bigger prize of regime change in Tehran. But now Bush's people say they can't talk with Iran because we're in a position of weakness, with an army bogged down in a civil war and an apparent lame duck commander-in-chief. If we're unwilling to negotiate when we're strong or when we're weak, we're just plain unwilling to negotiate.
No, Bush is unwilling to negotiate with Iran because it is a "rogue state." Because it refuses to play the game in the same way that all other nations do and, instead, would rather bring a gun to a poker game just in case it loses.

quote:
The American view is that Iran is too irrational to negotiate with, but there's justification for the view that we're the ones being unreasonable, and that we desire war.
The only thing we are being unreasonable about is our staunch desire that the Iranians play by the same rules as the rest of the world. The only thing we are willing to go to war over is to keep them using that gun.

quote:
Finally, it's true that Hitler killed himself and many Germans died in the war. But even Iranian fanatics aren't so stupid as to think that seeing nuclear missiles hit every major city in Iran, killing millions of innocent Israeli Muslims, and poisoning the land of Palestine is worth "wiping Israel off the map". Iran's leaders know that Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Iran hit them first. Even if Israel couldn't, the US probably would.
One could have made that very same argument about the Germans (and many did). And, yet, a very small minority of people managed to launch that entire nation into a war that ultimately cost 50 million lives.

Do not ignore that reality at OUR peril.


@ Jesse:
quote:
Sell me then. Unless you're seeking to "cure" a surplus of able bodied young American males, sell me on what you're going to cure and how you're going to cure it. None of your posts so far have done that.
Then you haven't been reading this thread and we are merely bickering. I suggest you go back and do so, otherwise you are wasting my time.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Ed, Sadat wasn't killed for making peace with Israel. One of the assasins screamed "I have killed Pharoh". Pharoh is the same guy in Islamic and Jewish tradition.

That's a bit of an ethnocentric leap. To Egyptian fundie muslims, Pharaoh would represent a non-muslim ruler of Egypt. That's the fundie nightmare: non-muslim ruling over a muslim population. Note that these same fundies vandalize ancient egyptian stuff murder tourists at Karnak, etc.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh, Pete?

The Muslim Brotherhood/Egyptian Islamic Jihad saw Sadat as a non-muslim ruler (to THEM he was appostate) of Egypt persecuting them for trying to keep "their faith with God" and holding them in bondage.

That's the point of the statement. Pharoh in Islamic tradition (see, back then, the Jews were still listening to God and were his chosen people) is the same guy as in Jewish tradition.

Redskull-

I wasn't accusing you of making stuff up when I asked what you based your current estimates on.

Since last December is your worst case scenerio, how do we know that they don't already have the bomb? Even if it was a test of one of their bombs or bomb designs that performed poorly in NK, does that give us any assurance that they don't have another which might work?

Isn't it possible they've already got a warhead or two, and very probable that they will launch if seriously attacked?

Ed-

I'm sorry, but you haven't laid out a case for anything but WWIII. I've carefully read your posts, but you haven't adressed any of the concerns I've raised, shown the ability to respond to correction of incorrect statements, admit that there are things you haven't considered, or lay out any long term strategy.

1) Bomb Iran.

2) ???????

3) All better.

KE

Bro, the Iranians are not utterly without any ability to respond to our attacks. We can't get away with glassing their country for litteral fallout reasons alone.

The borders between Iran and Iraq/Afganistan are not remotely close to seccure, they have a fair arsenal of short, intermediate, and long range missles, they have plenty of dirty bomb material, they have chemical weapons, they support multiple terror cells around the world, and there is no reason to believe they will take it lying down with a smile.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Jesse:
quote:
I'm sorry, but you haven't laid out a case for anything but WWIII.
I drew a parallel between today's events and WWII. Events that are so similar as to be downright scary. You argue that I need to make a case for something, when that was never my intent. My intent was to demonstrate the parallels, and I've done so.

quote:
I've carefully read your posts, but you haven't adressed any of the concerns I've raised,
Because the concerns you've raise are irrelevant to the point I'm making? Your disagreement over what comprised the region was irrelevant since you identified a region I wasn't referring to. Your assertion that Anwar was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't do anything to change the fact that their is a huge amount of propoganda being broadcast by their media that will, if nothing changes, result in war.

quote:
shown the ability to respond to correction of incorrect statements,
Corrections that still do not change my main point, even if I accepted them, and I don't accept them because they are irrelevant.

quote:
admit that there are things you haven't considered,
You haven't pointed out anything I haven't considered. You've only pointed out irrelevancies.

quote:
or lay out any long term strategy.
If I feel we're on the road to war, and I'm arguing that position, then, once again, laying out a long term strategy is irrelevant.

Furthermore, read the title of this thread, it's about Bushes speech, and, therefore, about Bush's strategy. That IS what this argument is about. Why do I need to lay out a long term strategy when I believe that Bush's strategy is likely the best one?

Have I said "irrelevant" enough times yet?

quote:
1) Bomb Iran.

2) ???????

3) All better.

Would you mind showing me where I make this assertion?

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why do I need to lay out a long term strategy when I believe that Bush's strategy is likely the best one?
Bush hasn't provided a long term strategy, and you think it's the best one?
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What? Attempting to build a free and democratic Iraq is not and cannot be a long term endeavor? Yer funny, Jesse. [Wink]
Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse

we don't know if they have a bomb or not. period. But they announced yesterday, and its in the cable news today, that they have accelerated plans to deploy 54,000 centrifuges, regect the current UN penalties, care less for the Russian offer to provide them with nuclear fuel for free, and more hauntingly, some think tank has said Iran is 3 years at most away from multiple ICBM nuclear weapons. And in their estimate, probably only 2 years.

So the question remains, we have no idea what they have. They apparently plan to have a nuclear bomb. And they apparently plan to have ICBMs to put bombs on. Do we wait until they demonstrate conclusively that they have a nuke? Do we act before they acheive an orbital ICBM test? Or do we just wait and see?

At anyrate the ball is under our control for only a limited space of time.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Honestly, Red, I don't think Iran will use those nukes without provocation. I'm more concerned about their attempts to increase their sphere of influence throughout the Shia dominated areas of the Middle East, just as they are doing now in Lebanon and Iraq. If they ever succeed, and if we're forced to push them out of whatever territories they've taken, then I fear they might resort to nukes.

But given their wanton calls for the destruction of Israel, their failure to hold to international law and their blatant disregard for the international community, it's wisest we do what we can to prevent them from ever obtaining nukes.

Just my two cents...

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Uh, Pete?

The Muslim Brotherhood/Egyptian Islamic Jihad saw Sadat as a non-muslim ruler (to THEM he was appostate) of Egypt persecuting them for trying to keep "their faith with God" and holding them in bondage.

That's the point of the statement. Pharoh in Islamic tradition

That's exactly what I was saying, Jesse. That the Pharaoh reference was a shout of Islamic extremism. Not some expression of sympathy for Israel, as the first poster seemed to think. Satat was murdered by the same type of Islamo-necrophiles that we're battling now. Even some of the faces are the same.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Pete, but my point to Jesse had to do with the fact that, amongst the reasons for killing Sadat, was his desire to make peace with Israel. A person can be killed for multiple reasons. [Smile]
Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right. I thought that was what you were questioning -- that Sadat was murdered in retaliation for Sadat's peace initiatives with Israel. Same #1 reason that OBL stated for his jihad on the west -- that we persuaded Egypt to peace with Israel.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1