Obama says Iran is breaking the rules

[yllus]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: President Obama
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow."

Except for the five to ten countries that already have nuclear weapons, of course.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as anybody, but this talking-down-to the U.S. continues to engage in is pretty pathetic. I guess it's better than admitting there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.

No wonder you have issues with people.....
Your view points are totally wacko!!

If we followed your way of thinking then every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons...hmmm

I don't think we really required more proof that you can't read.

 

[Atheus]

Good strong words from Brown there, more aggressive than Obama even, but perhaps there was still just a sense he was following the President in more than just speaking order. Politically he cannot be seen to be blindly following America again. If he/we were to enter a confrontation with Iran it would have to be seen as his/our own choice this time, and our trrops (if required) would have be fully British led and present in far larger numbers than in Iraq or even Afghanistan. I would personally join up and fight if this was the case.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Who made the rules?

The WWII allies - namely us, the Americans, and the Russians.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: President Obama
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow."

Except for the five to ten countries that already have nuclear weapons, of course.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as anybody, but this talking-down-to the U.S. continues to engage in is pretty pathetic. I guess it's better than admitting there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.

No wonder you have issues with people.....
Your view points are totally wacko!!

If we followed your way of thinking then every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons...hmmm

Well either that or no nations at all...

...and how is that so 'wacko'? Seems logical to me. Can you make a logical arguement as to why only some countries can have them and not others?

I would be happy if Iran developed nukes especially because the bully in the backyard has them and would not hesitate to use them. And if the rules mean anything why are they "allowed" to bend them while Iran is not. It's all bullshit. No wonder the world hates American policies.

You appear to live in Pakistan. So you'd be happy AND severely irradiated?

 

[sapiens74]

aren't these the same idiots who gave Bush and the Senate their Iraq "evidence"

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
aren't these the same idiots who gave Bush and the Senate their Iraq "evidence"

Aye.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...9/25/brooks/index.html

 

[Elias824]

Everyone keeps talking about diplomacy, but are these guys even willing to talk to us, UN sanctions have done nothing. What else do they want to disarm? We have used nuclear weapons before, we used them twice to end a war, not to start one. We also used them for 50 years to prevent another war. We have no assurances that Iran would to the same thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This thread should be titled "Obama keeps saying that Iran keeps breaking the rules, and he always will."

A little honesty here folks. Obama has no intention of doing anything about Iran. The UN just the same. Diplomacy in this context means window dressing.

This will end up with either Iran getting a nuke or Israel taking out their facilities. We're going to keep talking to ourselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

 

[Modelworks]

The UN will send them a really harsh letter and this time they are sending them a lump of coal with it too to show they really mean business now !

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Who made the rules? Why can the USA have nukes and Iran can't. Doesn't make sense to me.

Proliferation has to stop somewhere. I draw the line at our enemies or small or unstable nations. Where do you draw the line, would you let the Taliban develop nukes?

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre
Enforcing economic sanctions is an act of war. The sanctions placed upon Iraq helped cause the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, and was one of the main reasons given by OBL for the 9/11 attacks.

Iran is not a threat to the USA, nor was Iraq. It's a damn shame the left is as pro-war as the previous nutjobs we had in office.

You know nothing, bamacre. Iraq did not have a nuclear program, Iran does and one that for all the world looks to include nuclear weapons capability. What if we listen to you and some terrorist manages to smuggle Iranian bombs into some of our major cities? What if they Nuke Israel? What if Iran is willing to take the matter to Allah in a higher court.

Obama says it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. How do you, on so critical an issue say he is wrong. Who are you that I should listen to you and maybe get a nuclear war going? Do you believe is self defense? Do you believe in a justifiable war? Do you wait to be hit by a nuclear weapon before you respond so that you can feel justified.

I have told you over and over that to me you are a moral coward, one who will not dirty your hands with any matter in which you feel you might sin. So why should I listen to somebody who doesn't have the guts to choose the lesser of two evils?

When the fates of millions of people are involved, why would I listen to you. Between the lunatic and paranoid neocon right and pacifist fools like you, surely there must be some middle ground, something between the slaughter of innocent people and paralysis. For the irresponsible there have to be consequences. I do not consider the hard line Mullahs of Iran to be rational. I see them as dangerous uncompromising religious fanatics, unfit to govern. I would not allow one of them to put a gun to my head. I would have them show me they can bend or I would break them if they aim clearly to break me. I do not think it is so easy to know that like you seem to, dismissing the threat as unreal.

I am sure they feel the same way about the US and its presidents. Maybe they want to break us because we keep telling them what to do?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

Two things would be needed. First, make this THE priority for the various intel agencies. Learn everything that can be learned, then a bunker buster goes in.

Rinse, repeat.

The ideal solution would be to force Iran to open it's borders to inspectors and let them go where and when they please. That would only happen if we cut off their gas supply. That's not going to happen because I think Russia wants Iran to have nuke capability.

It's very hard to make weapons grade material if you blow up very expensive and hard to obtain and set up equipment.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

If a strike could take out the facilities, I'm guessing the Israelis would have done so long ago. The fact that they have not tells me that it can't be easily done, and that they don't really know where all the goods are, such that even if they do strike, they probably won't get all (the right) targets.

I know the Iranian hard liners are insane etc, but it bugs me that somehow the west is saying "Israel can have them, and that's fine because we like them, but you can't have them, because we don't like you". If you were Iran, would you not follow the same path they have?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

If a strike could take out the facilities, I'm guessing the Israelis would have done so long ago. The fact that they have not tells me that it can't be easily done, and that they don't really know where all the goods are, such that even if they do strike, they probably won't get all (the right) targets.

I know the Iranian hard liners are insane etc, but it bugs me that somehow the west is saying "Israel can have them, and that's fine because we like them, but you can't have them, because we don't like you". If you were Iran, would you not follow the same path they have?

That's the thing though, the Iranian hard liners aren't insane. I know that Ahmadinejad runs around saying crazy things all the time, but he doesn't run the show over there. Can anyone here think of a foreign policy move by Iran that has been crazy or irrational recently? We might not like their foreign policy goals, but they aren't nuts.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

Two things would be needed. First, make this THE priority for the various intel agencies. Learn everything that can be learned, then a bunker buster goes in.

Rinse, repeat.

The ideal solution would be to force Iran to open it's borders to inspectors and let them go where and when they please. That would only happen if we cut off their gas supply. That's not going to happen because I think Russia wants Iran to have nuke capability.

It's very hard to make weapons grade material if you blow up very expensive and hard to obtain and set up equipment.

That's really not a realistic solution in any way. If you're going to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, you've got one shot to do it. I'm sure that finding out everything we can about Iran's nuclear facilities is ALREADY one of the top priorities for our intel. Furthermore, our current bunker buster bombs cannot penetrate the major nuclear facilities that Iran has set up.

If you're going to do the strike, you need to get it all, and quickly before Iran has a chance to destroy the world economy. It's not like we can have some month long bombing campaign where we find a new nuclear facility every few days and then bomb it.

Earlier in this thread I linked a draft paper examining Israel's options for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Most of the analysis holds true for a US strike as well. Simply put, it's a pretty bad idea.

 

[Modelworks]

LOL, Irans response, paraphrasing ' we have one place we were planning to enrich uranium , but its not ready yet for at least 18 months, and these 4 countries want to charge us with not telling the truth, see there was nothing to find " , totally neglecting the fact he never told anyone about it.

It is like a crack maker running up to cops, yeah I got this lab, but I haven't made any crack yet, so I'm okay with that right ?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

If a strike could take out the facilities, I'm guessing the Israelis would have done so long ago. The fact that they have not tells me that it can't be easily done, and that they don't really know where all the goods are, such that even if they do strike, they probably won't get all (the right) targets.

I know the Iranian hard liners are insane etc, but it bugs me that somehow the west is saying "Israel can have them, and that's fine because we like them, but you can't have them, because we don't like you". If you were Iran, would you not follow the same path they have?

That's the thing though, the Iranian hard liners aren't insane. I know that Ahmadinejad runs around saying crazy things all the time, but he doesn't run the show over there. Can anyone here think of a foreign policy move by Iran that has been crazy or irrational recently? We might not like their foreign policy goals, but they aren't nuts.

I agree, I'm mean nuts in the sense that religious fundies are nuts, including the ones running Iran. I didn't mean nuts in the sense of "irrational blow up a nuke as soon as we have it just because we hate you"

The military option doesn't look promising, and the fact is that diplomacy will not work. We'd be better off figuring out how to deal with a nuclear armed Iran, because personally I think it's just as with North Korea - it's inevitable.

 

[StageLeft]

This will end up with either Iran getting a nuke or Israel taking out their facilities. We're going to keep talking to ourselves.

Abso-fvcking-lutely and I would bet anybody money on it. Nobody beyond Israel will possibly do more than temporarily slow Iran down.

Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

Because that's what bombs do, break stuff. With enough of them over a long enough period of time they can break anything.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

This will end up with either Iran getting a nuke or Israel taking out their facilities. We're going to keep talking to ourselves.

Abso-fvcking-lutely and I would bet anybody money on it. Nobody beyond Israel will possibly do more than temporarily slow Iran down.

Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

Because that's what bombs do, break stuff. With enough of them over a long enough period of time they can break anything.

So now you're talking about full blown preventative war with Iran. That's not a realistic answer, so my question still stands.

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

Two things would be needed. First, make this THE priority for the various intel agencies. Learn everything that can be learned, then a bunker buster goes in.

Rinse, repeat.

The ideal solution would be to force Iran to open it's borders to inspectors and let them go where and when they please. That would only happen if we cut off their gas supply. That's not going to happen because I think Russia wants Iran to have nuke capability.

It's very hard to make weapons grade material if you blow up very expensive and hard to obtain and set up equipment.

That's really not a realistic solution in any way. If you're going to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, you've got one shot to do it. I'm sure that finding out everything we can about Iran's nuclear facilities is ALREADY one of the top priorities for our intel. Furthermore, our current bunker buster bombs cannot penetrate the major nuclear facilities that Iran has set up.

If you're going to do the strike, you need to get it all, and quickly before Iran has a chance to destroy the world economy. It's not like we can have some month long bombing campaign where we find a new nuclear facility every few days and then bomb it.

Earlier in this thread I linked a draft paper examining Israel's options for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Most of the analysis holds true for a US strike as well. Simply put, it's a pretty bad idea.

Israel's done it before...

No doubt they can do it again.

 

[Lemon law]

In fact, NPR covered the very subject of possible Iranian rule breaking regarding the IAEA.

And it turns out that there are really two sets of IAEA rules, the set of rules Iran signed on to a and later amended set that may or may not apply to Iran because they post date the original set of rules Iran signed onto.

And by original rules set A Iran signed onto, Iran remains in compliance with IAEA rules, by the Tighter set of rules B that may well not apply to Iran, Iran is in violation of IAEA rules, but then something that takes much chutzpah and is amazing happens. And well ahead of any IAEA position, both Obama and Gordon Brown climb atop the same soapbox, and declare Iran in violation of IAEA regulations yet again. Rather neatly dodging the fact that its not their call to make because neither of them run the IAEA. A matter that is really starting to piss off the real people who actually run the IAEA and quite a number of world leaders are very soon likely to be rather rudely reminded of the fact that they do not run the IAEA by the real people who do run the IAEA. But the ever diplomatic IAEA always seem too diplomatic to tell them exactly how full of shit are are.

Meanwhile back on the ranch in Israel, Israel is waxing ecstatic about Iranian violations of the UN charter, and at the same time telling the UN where to shove it when Israelis are being investigated on war crimes by the UN.

Catch 22, hypocrisy, or bust, the truth is always the first causality in such not so gentle disagreements, which is why the ability to cherry pick the truth of your own choice always makes for a sweet cherry pie, even if you picked rotten and sour cherries.

 

[SandEagle]

hypocrites. all of them.
gee, i wonder which country didn't sign the NPT and has had a secret nuclear plant for over 20 years?

hmmm...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115750.html

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

Two things would be needed. First, make this THE priority for the various intel agencies. Learn everything that can be learned, then a bunker buster goes in.

Rinse, repeat.

The ideal solution would be to force Iran to open it's borders to inspectors and let them go where and when they please. That would only happen if we cut off their gas supply. That's not going to happen because I think Russia wants Iran to have nuke capability.

It's very hard to make weapons grade material if you blow up very expensive and hard to obtain and set up equipment.

That's really not a realistic solution in any way. If you're going to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, you've got one shot to do it. I'm sure that finding out everything we can about Iran's nuclear facilities is ALREADY one of the top priorities for our intel. Furthermore, our current bunker buster bombs cannot penetrate the major nuclear facilities that Iran has set up.

If you're going to do the strike, you need to get it all, and quickly before Iran has a chance to destroy the world economy. It's not like we can have some month long bombing campaign where we find a new nuclear facility every few days and then bomb it.

Earlier in this thread I linked a draft paper examining Israel's options for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Most of the analysis holds true for a US strike as well. Simply put, it's a pretty bad idea.

Israel's done it before...

No doubt they can do it again.

Everyone knows about Osirak, including Iran. That's why Israel could do nothing even remotely similar to Iran.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Does anyone really think that a military strike would take out Iran's nuclear program? If so, why?

Two things would be needed. First, make this THE priority for the various intel agencies. Learn everything that can be learned, then a bunker buster goes in.

Rinse, repeat.

The ideal solution would be to force Iran to open it's borders to inspectors and let them go where and when they please. That would only happen if we cut off their gas supply. That's not going to happen because I think Russia wants Iran to have nuke capability.

It's very hard to make weapons grade material if you blow up very expensive and hard to obtain and set up equipment.

Not going to happen. Iran's "secret" nuclear facilities were built by the US during the reign of the Shah. They were built to withstand Russian bombardment. Why do you think we have so much intelligence on them? They are no more secret than any other facility we've built in foreign countries in the last 50 years.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Enforcing economic sanctions is an act of war. The sanctions placed upon Iraq helped cause the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, and was one of the main reasons given by OBL for the 9/11 attacks.

Iran is not a threat to the USA, nor was Iraq. It's a damn shame the left is as pro-war as the previous nutjobs we had in office.

I'm with Bamacre on this one. Iran is not a threat to the United States. The only reason they might be is if we meddle endlessly in their affairs. Shut up about them and leave them alone and just influence them through flooding them with culture and goods through trade in my opinion...and we'd be much better off .

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This is so fucking stupid that it's ridiculous, you ACTUALLY do not think we already have people who report back about the activities?

Iran is a threat to it's own population most of all and their leadership is fucked up, not that i blame them, the US did say that they are part of the axis of evil even after they offered to help with Iraq and they pretty much know that unless they get a nuke, they are history as the US doesn't give a flying fuck about evidence of wrongdoings or WMD's, nukes or terrorist ties, they make that shit up as they go along with the help of the UK that ordered the MI6 to make up evidence just as the US ordered CIA to enhance evidence.

It's about fear, well, hang on while you are shaking in your boots, Iran hasn't done sheit yet, you can sit down and watch your soaps for a few months yet until this gets serious enouch for you to crap your pants and hide under your beds.

Pathetic.