UN: No Clear Arms Evidence on Iran Nuclear Program

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh I'm quite sure the administration will flail about trying to coalesce some sort of rational Iran policy. Yet, what can they do? With the UN and NATO and just about all of our European allies alienated? With the lost credibility that comes with the War in Iraq?

Yes, but your boy Kerry will fix all that instantly upon taking office. Give me a break.

Way to put words in my mouth there Wizard. I never said any such thing. Although, I note that Kerry is floating the concept of offering Iran a carrot for proving they only have a peaceful nuke program. Honestly, I think engaging these countries (NK and Syria included) and giving them an incentive for rejoining the International community is a good first step.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Your strategy is full of empty language. Surprise, just like the administration's "strategy" on Iran! Face it, you don't have a better alternative do you? I mean hell, this is your second Iran thread in two days, let's hear what you would do.

Nor do you have any ideas, just like Kerry! Amazing. As I've said time and again, there is no good strategy for dealing with Iran - only those that are bad and worse. Same with NK.

I do, yet this is the OP's second thread in two days about Iran. Since it's a topic that's obviously very important to Hero, I would like to hear his ideas.

PS: I note that his only idea thus far is to go to the UN. That would be fine, however I probably wouldn't have to dig very far to find a post by Hero that disses the UN up one side and down the other. The same goes for many of the other conservative posters around here.

 

[DealMonkey]

Here's a choice Bushism or three concerning Iran:

"Secondly, the tactics of our?as you know, we don't have relationships with Iran. I mean, that's?ever since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them, and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words, there's no sanctions?you can't?we're out of sanctions."?Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

We've TOTALLY, like, sanctioned their asses? Well, all right then, mission accomplished!

"Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon."?Washington, D.C., June 18, 2003

From the no sh*t files... Oh brother...

"I don't think you give timelines to dictators."

Oh really?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well, I think we should and I think we shouldn't. It would take all day for me to articulate the many nuances of my position, so I'll sum it up by saying that I think we should do the right thing the best way possible.

LOL - and to think Republicans attack Senator Kerry for his lack of vision! I take it the "many nuances of [your] position" don't include any actual facts, tactics or strategies.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well, I think we should and I think we shouldn't. It would take all day for me to articulate the many nuances of my position, so I'll sum it up by saying that I think we should do the right thing the best way possible.

LOL - and to think Republicans attack Senator Kerry for his lack of vision! I take it the "many nuances of [your] position" don't include any actual facts, tactics or strategies.

Yes, because any opinion worth stating can only have a one-liner to back it up. Laff.

Despite the differences among the members of the UN Security Council, I'd be willing to bet they would pull together to slap Iran and NK with whatever they can to bring them back to within reckoning. It's a fine line with both countries.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well, I think we should and I think we shouldn't. It would take all day for me to articulate the many nuances of my position, so I'll sum it up by saying that I think we should do the right thing the best way possible.

LOL - and to think Republicans attack Senator Kerry for his lack of vision! I take it the "many nuances of [your] position" don't include any actual facts, tactics or strategies.

 

[f95toli]

The "problem" with discussions like this is that it is relatively easy to build an atomic bomb if you have enough uranium (weapon-grade), it would probably take less than six months. A plutionium bomb is somewhat more difficult and would take a few more months.
So the discussion about whether or not Iran CAN build a bomb or nog is meaningless, the answer is definitly yes.

The real questions are: Do they have the uranium? Maybe, they definitly have the resources and know-how; but probably not the facilities.

Are they actually planning to build a bomb? Personally I doubt it, unless they are 100% sure that they can keep it a secret, they know that if Israel or USA found out about a plan to build a bomb (and could prove it to the world) they would be in real trouble.

You should also remember that the development in Iran IS going in the right direction, it is now "semi-democratic" country with a relatively strong democratic opposition and it seems the religous leadres are slowly loosing their political powers.
I think there is a real possibility that some of the religious leaders WANT a limited conflict with the west, it would give them an opportunity rally supportand to label the democratic opposition as traitors, it would of course also show that they have been right all along.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: f95toli

You should also remember that the development in Iran IS going in the right direction, it is now "semi-democratic" country with a relatively strong democratic opposition and it seems the religous leadres are slowly loosing their political powers.

I thought they recently solidified their powers and crippled the democratic opposition.

 

[f95toli]

Maybe, but I think this is another case of "two steps forward, one step back".

There are negativeand positive signs, when the religious leaders (the "Guardian councel" or whatever they are called) stopped members of parliament from participating in the elections everyone in Iran knew about it (the MPs went on strike in the parliament) in a full fledged dictatorship they would just have thrown everyone in jail and censored the press.

So it is true that they have solidified their "formal" powers (the parliament) but people(mainly students) are protesting and as far as I understand the support for the opposition in rising.

The fact that people like Shirin Ebadi are allowed to practice law is also a good sign.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Yes, because any opinion worth stating can only have a one-liner to back it up. Laff.

I'm not looking for a "one-liner," I'm looking for a few paragraphs explaining the "many nuances" of his position. I gather he doesn't have one, except to the extent he disagrees with Sen Kerry (but that has nothing to do with simple partisanism!).

Who were you before you were banned, or are you an existing user working through a proxy? No new user would come here and throw up nearly 300 posts in 5 days.

 

[conjur]

Powell thinks that Iran isn't "fessing up to everything"
http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...ws&storyID=6130319

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Yes, because any opinion worth stating can only have a one-liner to back it up. Laff.

I'm not looking for a "one-liner," I'm looking for a few paragraphs explaining the "many nuances" of his position. I gather he doesn't have one, except to the extent he disagrees with Sen Kerry (but that has nothing to do with simple partisanism!).

Who were you before you were banned, or are you an existing user working through a proxy? No new user would come here and throw up nearly 300 posts in 5 days.

I'm Batman.

 

[DealMonkey]

<crickets>

I notice that Hero and PsychoWizard haven't answered my questions. I suspect that means they have nothing substantive to say concerning Iran and our policies there.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
<crickets>

I notice that Hero and PsychoWizard haven't answered my questions. I suspect that means they have nothing substantive to say concerning Iran and our policies there.

That's because your last post was legally retarded. Where are these questions that you speak of?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
<crickets>

I notice that Hero and PsychoWizard haven't answered my questions. I suspect that means they have nothing substantive to say concerning Iran and our policies there.

That's because your last post was legally retarded. Where are these questions that you speak of?

Legally retarded? Heh.

Look, I guess I don't see the point of these Iran threads. Given that we don't recognize the country's existance, diplomacy is pretty much out. Other than that, our options are (A) Work with the Int'l community -- meaning UN and IAEA, or (B) Bomb them. Frankly, unless it gets to "B" it seems that we're already doing "A" and I don't see a whole lot of difference between Bush's approach and Kerry's hypothetical approach.

What other approaches ARE there? I guess we could try restoring relations with Iran. I suspect that would get a lot of resistance from the hard-liners around here though...