Why doesn't the media ever tell us how far Iran has gotten in enriching Uranium?

[Jhhnn]

You're referring erroneously to the "laptop dossier" offered up by the US as actual proof, PJ.

It's the basis for the current round of questions from the IAEA- they're asking questions based on US supplied information... all things considered, the value of it remains questionable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11....html?pagewanted=print

EBW detonators are used in a variety of non-nuclear applications and are commercially available... well, if you're not under sanctions...

And none of it really matters if there's no 90% U235 or PU239, anyway. No explosively fissionable material- no bomb. That's the whole point of the IAEA.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: yllus
When I watch Senator Obama speak and see him make his political maneuvers, "pushover" is not the word that comes to mind. He's been quite ruthless so far in his remarkable rise to power. I very much doubt he'd be in over his head on the international stage.

No, he may try but his methods achieve the opposite of the desired intent.

The latest example after Iran fired some long range missiles make him/us seem like panicing, scared quivering cowards afraid of the big bad Iran which does nothing but strengthen their resolve;

Obama: Iranian missile tests call for more talks

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says that Iran's missile tests highlight the need for tougher threats of economic sanctions as well as strong incentives to persuade Tehran to change its behavior.

Iran's state-run television reported Wednesday that the government had tested nine long- and medium-range missiles.

 

[Lemon law]

Socio may be right when he says---No, he may try but his methods achieve the opposite of the desired intent.

But the remark fits GWB like a glove and on past proven record. And Socio is merely speculating about Obama while I can make the same speculation about McCain.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, well, the part socio ignores, as usual, is that the Bush Admin has avoided actual one on one dialogue with the Iranians as if such were a plague ship... And any offers of an "economic package" incentive fall short of granting the iranian govt any sort of legitimacy at all. Such offers are incredibly vague, and have only been made via intermediaries, basically confirming regime change intentions.

Quite rightfully, the Iranians interpret such as a threat, and react predictably in what they see as their only option for self defense and independence. Incessant bullying and vilification merely strengthen their resolve...

If Obama follows the same methods, he'll get the same results. Given that the repub foreign policy establishment is neocon to its core, McCain will surely obtain those same results. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the quintessential definition of insanity... which, I suppose, fits in perfectly with an intention to escalate to war, no matter what... a whole different kind of insanity.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, well, the part socio ignores, as usual, is that the Bush Admin has avoided actual one on one dialogue with the Iranians as if such were a plague ship... And any offers of an "economic package" incentive fall short of granting the iranian govt any sort of legitimacy at all. Such offers are incredibly vague, and have only been made via intermediaries, basically confirming regime change intentions.

Iran wants cookies for doing what it is supposed to do. US says no cookies for you. We get what we want, or you get blown up. Because we're not going to let you blow up other nations and start a middle-eastern nuclear arms race. Which is what they've already started with their recent refining. It'll only get worse once the first goes off.

It's like paying kids to not get in trouble.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

None of that is definitive proof of anything. Making decisions based on suspect intel is what got us into the Iraq shithole.

What level of proof do you require before you are pursuaded Iran is pursuing nukes?

(I hope it's not a mushroom cloud or a test.)

Fern

Concrete evidence, you seem eager to repeat the same mistakes that we made prior to the Iraq war.

How do you define "concrete evidence"?

Please list some examples.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

For MAD to work you have to have rational leaders in charge on both sides.

Sadly some Muslims think that it will take some major earth shaking event, such as a nuclear war, to bring back the hidden Iman and bring about the end of the world. Or something along that lines.

Remember this is the same Iran that allowed a bunch of students to break into our embassy and hold Americans hostage for 400+ days. The fact that our military could have wiped their country off the map didn't stop them then what makes you think they have changed since?

This is an old and tired talking point, one that we use against pretty much every opponent of ours. The leaders of Iran are 100% rational. Not only that, but how do you not see the parallels with the US? Some Christians in the US think that by provoking some sort of war involving Israel that Jesus will return and bring about the end of the world. Bush is an extremely devout Christian. Do I think for a second Bush is trying to bring about the rapture? Of course not.

I won't even get into the difference between a country in the throes of revolution and the government of Iran today. You know better then that.