Panetta says Israel could strike Iran in spring: report

[chucky2]

Even better, think how high oil would be then!

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Prerogative is a fickle thing. Others contend that its our prerogative to bomb the piss out of Iran simply for development of peaceful nuclear capabilities.

We have people here who work in the nuclear power generation field. I'm not one of them, but it's my understanding there are several ways to produce power with a nuke plant and that Iran has refused help and chosen the type of power plant that that lends itself to weapon producing capability.

If Iran would have sought a nuke plant that couldn't be used to produce weapons I would be supporting their efforts. However, their refusal to accept help and refuse to pursue a non-weapon type plant strongly indicate to me that they are pursuing nuke weapons.

BTW: I do think they have a legitimate need for nuke power. I don't think they have enough oil reserves to continue relying upon it for power generation.

Fern

 

[kylebisme]

He mentioned possible dates. (Months the attack was likely.)

David Ignatius claimed "Panetta believes there is strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June", but didn't actually quote Panetta saying anything of the sort, and provides no source for his claim.

it's my understanding there are several ways to produce power with a nuke plant and that Iran has refused help and chosen the type of power plant that that lends itself to weapon producing capability.

Iran's never refused help developing their nuclear energy capabilities, but rather only attempts to impose limitations on such development. Furthermore, all nuclear research and development "lends itself to weapon producing capability" to some extent or another, and the power plants Iran is working are comparable to those in operation in other countries which have never attempted to develop nuclear weapons. What you see as a strong indication is nothing but an illusion created by people with ulterior motives, little different than the rhetoric claiming Iraq was perusing nuclear weapons, and spread by many of the same people.

I do think they have a legitimate need for nuke power. I don't think they have enough oil reserves to continue relying upon it for power generations.

Besides that, it would be smart of them to switch over to nuclear power as soon as possible so they can make more money from selling their oil as prices continue to rise. They've also got a lot of uranium which could provide them with a lucrative industry in exporting nuclear fuel as well. However, our establishment believes they have a legitimate right to stomp out prosperity wherever they can and horde the wealth for themselves, and they put a lot of effort into convincing the rest of us to cheer them on.

 

[chucky2]

The difference though is, if someone else provides the fuel, Iran gets only civilian nuke energy.

If Iran enriches to provide their own fuel, they get civilian nuke energy plus capacity to make a nuke(s).

I think pretty much every country in the region, along with the entire Western world, wants #1 to happen. Iran by refusing Russia's help, appears to want #2 to happen.

Why go hands off on Iran and get a guaranteed #2 when you could instead push them and possibly limit to #1 or at least delay #2 as long as possible? I see no reason to do the former when the latter is a far better option to everyone but Iran (and that's the Leadership of Iran, the people of Iran will be worse off when Iran gets a nuke, and can't control it properly - just like what will eventually happen with Pakistan).

Chuck

P.S. Awaiting the #1/2 jokes...

 

[Nebor]

If the pilots and/or Leadership is 3rd rate I agree...but I have no idea how good their current air force or Leadership is.

Personally if I was Iran, I'd have taken Russia up on its offer, got the plants up and running, thereby being far less dependent on gas, and then developed my nuke. Gets everything at - long term view - nearly the same time, much less world scrutiny, much more trust gained (even if it'll be violated later), etc. etc.

The way they've done it now, every other sh1thole country in the region that can afford it will be now going the same route. Awesome!

Saudi Arabia's entire military is third rate. Their officer corps is comprised entirely of royalty, and they are not professionals in any sense. Ask anyone that's ever worked with Saudis or done a joint exercise with them, they're worthless. Iran would annihilate Saudi Arabia in any sort of conflict.

 

[chucky2]

What do they actually do with their air force then, just let it sit there and look pretty? Or do they actually have pilots that can fly what they have, and fly it at least somewhat competently?

Last I'd heard, Iran barely had an air force; F-14A's, some Mig-29's. That's not going to stand up to F-15's with the latest goodies (which is what the SA spec is/will be).

Chuck

 

[EagleKeeper]

What do they actually do with their air force then, just let it sit there and look pretty? Or do they actually have pilots that can fly what they have, and fly it at least somewhat competently?

Last I'd heard, Iran barely had an air force; F-14A's, some Mig-29's. That's not going to stand up to F-15's with the latest goodies (which is what the SA spec is/will be).

Chuck

Saudi has competent pilots trained on the fighters that they have purchased.

the Iranian F14 are for all intents, mothballed.
Training for Iran is piss poor

 

[chucky2]

Then SA will simply roll over Iran in respect to air force vs. air force. Who knows how F-15SA's against Iran's ground defenses would manage...but if all SA does is hold their own territory, they should overwhelmingly be able to waste whatever Iran can put up.

I was hoping SA would fund the new Silent Eagle...I'd just like to see that thing fly, even if it's only 20 made or something.

 

[kylebisme]

The difference though is, if someone else provides the fuel, Iran gets only civilian nuke energy.

If Iran enriches to provide their own fuel, they get civilian nuke energy plus capacity to make a nuke(s).

Getting fuel from elsewhere for civilian nuke energy doesn't necessary preclude the possibility of procuring nuclear weapons by other means, and being able to enrich uranium doesn't necessarily include understanding how to enrich it to weapons grade levels, let alone how to actually create construct an effective bomb out of it. Furthermore, a dirty bomb can be constructed out of fuel purchased under the auspices of civilian use. Again, what Iran actually gets if they don't learn to enrich their abundant uranium deposits effectively is dependance on the whims of foreign nations for their energy, and they loose the possibility of profiting from selling reactor fuel to other nations. Would you want that for your nation?

Why go hands off on Iran and get a guaranteed #2 when you could instead push them and possibly limit to #1 or at least delay #2 as long as possible?

Because I just flushed your #1/2 down the toilet for you (you asked for it ). Besides, pushing people to stop doing something they are legally entitled to do is harassment.

 

[chucky2]

Pardon the pun, but, you didn't flush sh1t.

The point is this: Iran isn't in the bargaining/sanction position that nations in good international standing, and/or so strong no one F's with them, are. Iran doesn't have the luxury of making the choice you've put forth without consequences.

Because of that, your assumed one way answer to your black and white question is nuked (again, no pun intended), because your question is turned to many shades of grey, yet you're still answering black.

Iran has chosen black too, and they're paying - and will continue to pay - for it. Apperently they think when they get a bomb, they're going to be treated different. Funny thing is though, they won't. No one was ever going to invade Iran, ever, so it doesn't matter if they have a nuke or not (using a nuke in this day and age boils down to you're being invaded on the ground by someone you can't stop).

My points still stand...

 

[kylebisme]

you're still answering black.

You've only feigned an argument with vague allusions to consequences, and haven't answered the question at all. Are you suggesting that if your nation was in a position to be pressured as Iran is, you would cower under such harassment?

Apperently they think when they get a bomb

What leads you assume Iran even intends to get a bomb, considering the fact that people who should know, like Leon Panetta, say they aren't even trying?

 

[Dari]

Pardon the pun, but, you didn't flush sh1t.

The point is this: Iran isn't in the bargaining/sanction position that nations in good international standing, and/or so strong no one F's with them, are. Iran doesn't have the luxury of making the choice you've put forth without consequences.

Because of that, your assumed one way answer to your black and white question is nuked (again, no pun intended), because your question is turned to many shades of grey, yet you're still answering black.

Iran has chosen black too, and they're paying - and will continue to pay - for it. Apperently they think when they get a bomb, they're going to be treated different. Funny thing is though, they won't. No one was ever going to invade Iran, ever, so it doesn't matter if they have a nuke or not (using a nuke in this day and age boils down to you're being invaded on the ground by someone you can't stop).

My points still stand...

To them, it's a price worth paying. All this talk of sanctions only ties the hands of Western nations or their companies. Have you looked at what the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Koreans are saying and what they're doing as far as using Iranian oil and gas? These countries don't want their energy policy dictated by countries that cannot serve as an alternative to Iranian oil. So, they will continue to purchase Iranian oil and gas at the same or higher rate since it'll be at a discount.

 

[trenchfoot]

As much as I'd like to see the iran nuke program pounded into oblivion, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that iran learned from history and built a bunch of stuff in a bunch of different places. They likely don't have one nice target that can be neutralized, they have a bunch of them, many of which we probably don't even know about yet.

This is a tough one. Whatever happens, I hope it's something the US can get through without real leadership, because we certainly don't have any in DC.

Probably under their hospitals, schools, foreign embassies and mosques.

 

[amdhunter]

I hope they do. And I hope Iran returns a nuke on Israel. Then I hope the US drops a bomb on both of them.

I am so sick of that part of the world, and they ALL need to be wiped off the map already.

 

[cybrsage]

Besides, pushing people to stop doing something they are legally entitled to do is harassment.

Iran

Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[19] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[60] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[20] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[61] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[62] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[63]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

 

[Lemon law]

Mohamed ElBaradei has about zero credibility. He said ole Saddam had WMD too and now we know he never did.

Kylebisme at least has it right, Iran is at least a year or two from a deciding point on nuclear weapons options. And meanwhile continues to work with IAEA inspectors that are rational.

But when it comes to idiots like Mohamed ElBaradei, there is no way in the world to disprove his totally baseless suspicions.

 

[kylebisme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

What you quoted there does nothing to change the fact that Iran is legally entitled to to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and pushing them to stop doing so is harassment.

Kylebisme at least has it right, Iran is at least a year or two from a deciding point on nuclear weapons options.

Where exactly did you imagine this nonsense in anything I said?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So Panetta says that Iran isn't seeking nuclear weapons

OK then why did he say this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...nuke-dispute/2012/02/03/gIQAn7AnmQ_story.html

Is he afraid one is going to decend from heaven?

 

[kylebisme]

So Panetta says that Iran isn't seeking nuclear weapons

Yeah, again:

Leon Panetta on Iran:

Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.

I'm not finding anything quoted from Panetta in the article you linked which contradicts that, so please quote whatever you are implying does.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, again:


I'm not finding anything quoted from Panetta in the article you linked which contradicts that, so please quote whatever you are implying does.

Thats not showing anything on the damned mobile site, but the one I linked to was from the other day where he say we must stand strong to prevent Iran from getting nukes. So you maintain that Panetta thinks we must stand against something thats not there to stand against? If he believes nukes are a non issue why is he making one?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Some people will take a snippet out and twist it for their own purposes for an different context.

Panetta elaborated on his original statement that there was concern. That does not count.

 

[kylebisme]

Thats not showing anything on the damned mobile site, but the one I linked to was from the other day where he say we must stand strong to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

That's not quite what he's quoted as saying in the article you linked, and what it does quote him as saying doesn't contradict his previous statement that Iran isn't trying to develop a bomb.

Some people will take a snippet out and twist it for their own purposes for an different context.

Panetta elaborated on his original statement that there was concern. That does not count.

You tend to babble in vagaries to feign an argument when it has already been refuted.

 

[Lemon law]

As EK complains that " Some people will take a snippet out and twist it for their own purposes for an different context.", we can somewhat note EK proves he is a poster child for one of those some people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's not quite what he's quoted as saying in the article you linked, and what it does quote him as saying doesn't contradict his previous statement that Iran isn't trying to develop a bomb.

From my link-

Panetta was responding to an airman who asked at what point the United States would get involved in Israel’s potential conflict with Iran. Panetta sidestepped that aspect of the Iran issue and focused on international efforts to persuade Iran to not build the bomb.

He reiterated that all U.S. options are on the table, implying the possibility of using military force.

“My view is that right now the most important thing is to keep the international community unified,” Panetta said, “so we’re keeping that pressure on to convince Iran that they shouldn’t develop a nuclear weapon, that they should join the international family of nations” and abide by international norms.

You say Panetta is saying that Iran isn't going to develop nuclear weapons and then he says we need to apply pressure to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons.

That's not very helpful now is it?

 

[Nebor]

As EK complains that " Some people will take a snippet out and twist it for their own purposes for an different context.", we can somewhat note EK proves he is a poster child for one of those some people.

You can "somewhat note?!" What the fuck does that even mean?