Iran and Nuclear Proliferation

Iran’s nuclear program what should we do? They have repeatedly threatened peaceful nations and publicly vowed to destroy Israel. Israel is an ally to us and we are at open enmity with Iran. If we delay in taking care of this nuclear business with Iran then they will get a bomb. We have learned this from North Korea. We spent too much time hoping that a diplomatic solution could come about. Obviously, it did not

Now the question is what to do next? Iran is not backing down they are not accepting anything the EU is throwing at them to help compromise. The way I see it is we have three basic options.

1. Use diplomacy…..We are currently doing this but there seems to be no headway. Iran is not backing down and there seems to be no resolve to do anything about it.

2. Declare war and then go in and destroy all aspects of there nuclear program and at the same time dispose the government and install a new democratic government. There seems to be support for democracy in Iran among the general populace.

3. A strategic strike. Give an hour pre warning and then strike the nuclear facility and any supporting facilities. This would set then back years and maybe encourage the local populace to stand up to their tyrannical government.


All there have there pros and cons. I personally am for a strategic strike. I think this would bring about the least amount of death with the best possibility to accomplish our goals of stopping there nuclear proliferation. We have the ability to pinpoint our attacks now through laser guidance thusly we will not be hitting the wrong target. I know many will disagree I would love to hear why and maybe some other solutions as well. Please don’t just shoot off with out offering any solutions as well.

Posted by Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 12:16 PM
Comments
Comment #149461

Let me get out ahead of this issue. It’s our fault for nukes in the world. If we hadn’t developed nukes, used them in Japan and kept them from the USSR, the world would be safer today. If we hadn’t armed Europe against USSR aggression in the 50’s-60’s-70’s it wouldn’t have spun out of control. If we hadn’t propped up the Shah, Iran would be a kinder gentler nation today. And if you click your heels together three times, you’ll be in Kansas before you know it! Hope I captured all the leftist rants, I’m sure they’ll let me know if I missed any. Bye the way - PREEMPTIVE STRIKES!!!

Posted by: JR at May 19, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #149465

We are not able to change the past we can only work in the present and hope for change in the future. I for one hope to see a nuclear free Iran.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #149468
We have learned this from North Korea. We spent too much time hoping that a diplomatic solution could come about.

Actually, President Bush got distracted by Iraq. There was no diplomacy until after N. Korea reprocessed their spent rods into weapons.

Now the question is what to do next?

Keep going with option 1. It’s working. Both the Russians and the Chinese — as well as the Malaysians and Indonesians — are urging Iran to accept the EU offer. Support for Iran is slipping away, because the longer they reject reasonable requests, the more it becomes obvious to everyone that they want nukes. International consensus is turning against Iran.

Time is on our side. The Bush administration’s handling of this issue — so far — is the best thing I’ve seen from them ever. I’m becoming a Dr. Rice fan.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 19, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #149470

I am glad you like DR Rice. I do as well. Now I understand we all want to see diplomacy work. I fear that it will take all our time and then Iran will have nukes and then we are stalemated. I know that the world will talk strong but they do not back it up. the UN seems to be spineless when the rubber meets the road. they remind me of a person who can talk real good smack but then runs when the real fight comes around.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #149471

Randall,

Do you know much about the Iran program? If you did, you would have realized that a “strategic strike” cannot happen. The only way to get to these nuke programs is by using footsoldiers. They are in Iraq now. Unless that is, you want to use nukes on them. Our “Bunker busters” could work, but then you are opening a whole new can of worms.

Why is war such an easy term for you Conservatives? We haven’t even finished the last one you started.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 19, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #149477

Vincent, you forgot to provide a solution in your rant. Heck, just provide a POSSIBLE solution.

The history of Iran is such that they as a people feel that they are supposed to be the dominant nation in Eurasia at a minimum. Their new leadership clearly wants to assert that national pride. So how do we deal with a country that believes in martyrdom, nuclear proliferation and world dominance? Threats at annihilation won’t work for the leaders in Iran (that’s what they want). It might work with the people, but it won’t do any good with the present leadership. So what do we do? (Here is where I take the next step, Vince)

Economic sanctions will get “the people” to stand up to the leadership. That’s start.

Keep pressuring the United Nations to act (this is really a last resort in my opinion, as we all know that the UN hasn’t achieved anything on their own in over 4,000 years.

Do not negotiate. Jimmy Carter and Billy Boy Clinton showed us how ineffective that was with North Korea. We didn’t just negotiate with Kim, we financed his projects! Good deal if you are working we a friend. Not so good when they are your sworn enemy and have shown a propensity for bald-faced lies.

This will take time, but if we can get the people of Iran to feel our pain, we may see a “revolution” in our lifetime.

Vince… what do you think? What would work better than that? (Don’t just tell me how stupid I am… give me some good ideas).

Posted by: Bruce at May 19, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #149478
Clinton showed us how ineffective that was with North Korea.

How so? North Korea didn’t start developing nukes until well after President Bush took office. In fact, North and South Korea were on the verge of reunification until President Bush put a stop to it.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 19, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #149480

Vincent

Yeah, war is easy. I for one would want to wait for at least 2 or 3 solidly verified sources that the nuclear explosion in Israel or New York or LA was from the Iranians. I’m sure we’ll get a warning or something before the bomb goes off, right? I mean Mahmoud is really a quiet, sincere leader with the worlds best interests at heart, isn’t he? Have you or your kids had your immunization shots? Why? You have no solid proof you’ll ever suffer from TB or Polio, skip the shots - no sense in being proactive inorder to protect yourself or your family. While I totally disagree with your perception that conservatives started the last war, I am certain that they will see it through to victory, not cut and run for cover!

Posted by: JR at May 19, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #149482

I realize that a strategic strike would not be easy. it can be done. yes there would be nuclear fall out possible and other issues. If they get the bomb then there will definetly be nuclear fall out but it will be in the middle of a city where millions of innocents civilians are. I know that liberals hate civilian casualties. Think of the war that will start. I hate to even think about it. A real nuclear war. I say stop it now while we still can.

I do not think we will finish our Iraq business any time soon. Or at least we should not we must see it all the way through. By the way many many democrats voted as well to go into Iraq it was a bi-partisan war. At least in the beginning.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #149483

American Pundit

Clinton gave the N Koreans all the equipment necessary to produce “peaceful” atomic energy. If he hadn’t given in to their bluster, they may well be years farther behind in enrichment. Bush stopped reunification? site your sources please.

Posted by: JR at May 19, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #149484

Bruce,

I think those are very good ideas. My opinion would tend to accompany what Randall used as his #1 response.

My point is that every right-wing wacko wants to go to war with Iran. They think like Randall (no Randall I am not calling you a wacko) that we can just bomb the facilities and that will take care of the problem. What many don’t understand is that these facilities are UNDER GROUND. We cannot reach them with our typical weapons. Instead we would probably have to go nuclear. I don’t ever want to have to go nuclear.

That was my point.

By the way, it is much harder to have a position on Iran when our idiot of a President has all of our men and women in Iraq. What is a letter thought right? N, Q it doesn’t matter. Same region correct?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 19, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #149490

In theory, the idea of strategic strikes looks best, but we definitely need to be careful taking any military action. We saw how effective strategic strikes were against al-qaeda after the USS Cole.

Our opposition in the Middle East feeds off of the idea of America as invading conqueror. This is why I throw out the argument that we needed to overthrow Saddam. While the world is undoubtedly better off with him in jail, it makes dealing with an actual threat like Iran more difficult. More difficult strategically because our military is already stretched, politically because we are thin on allies. We’ve put ourselves, un-necessarily, in a position where our options are limited when faced with a legitimate nuclear threat. If it comes down to war with Iran, we will be fighting alone, with a weakened military on borrowed yuan.

Posted by: David S at May 19, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #149500

Does anyone believe that Iran (or any country) could build a nuclear weapon without testing it??

Any such test will be registered on seismic monitors around the world and would be incontrovertible proof that Iran (nearly?) has a weapon. Until such a test is conducted, we have time for diplomatic solutions to emerge. The more Iran fights against diplomatic solutions to verify that they do not have nuclear weapons, the more the pressure can be ratcheted up on Iran (and its supporters).

The question is can the Bush Administration do what it did not do in Iraq and have the patience to apply diplomatic force to the situation?

Posted by: David at May 19, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #149505

Who cares about Israel? You jews and the need to be appeased… Move to Israel and fight your own Holy Wars!

Using the US as a “crutch” to wage your dogmatic wars is beneath reprehensible.

Viva Iran!

Posted by: kurt at May 19, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #149506

JR -

Try this:

Bush Decision Prompts End to North-South Cabinet Meetings

Posted by: David at May 19, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #149526
1. Use diplomacy…..We are currently doing this but there seems to be no headway. Iran is not backing down and there seems to be no resolve to do anything about it.

Bullshit. Diplomacy hasn’t even started, and we should really try that first.

Bush hasn’t even talked with Iran. He hasn’t even sat down with them. Any kind of move before even giving them a phone call is going to be looked down on by the rest of the world and rightly so.

Posted by: Max at May 19, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #149530

we should also invade israel on the same pretext. we cant send mixed messages, allowing some countries to have nukes, but not others.

Posted by: alex at May 19, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #149532

Slow down there, Max!

We will sit down with Iran when they are ready to TALK. The nice letter that Ahmanijananijalalabad wrote was not a move towards discussion, diplomacy or negotiation. We have been very clear about what needs to happen before we will come to a unilateral table. If President Bush does one thing very well, it’s make a statement and stick to his policy.

Frankly, there is NOTHING we can do to stop Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. It’s not going to happen. The only thing we can hope for is that the present leadership of Iran is overthrown.

Study the history of Persia and you’ll see why it is likely that they will change their tune about world domination any time soon.

I have a question:

Which country would you like to see become the preeminent world power:

1. China
2. North Korea
3. USA
4. Russia
5. Iran

“None” is not an acceptable answer. Who in here would rather see 1, 2, 4 or 5 be the most powerful nation in the world, over the USA?

Posted by: Bruce at May 19, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #149545

Slow down there, Bruce!

You’ve condemned us to war with Iran even before without making any attempt to understand the psychology of Iran. There is still a long way to go with diplomacy before you can say that we have to overthrow Iran. Just remember, we rushed to war with Iraq and the end of that is still not in sight.

Posted by: David at May 19, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #149548

Max,

Slow down. It is okay. Just to update you we have and are currently working through diplomatic channels with Iran to change the way things are going. NO we have not come to sit down talks yet. That will only come when Iran puts the nuclear subject on the table and so far they wont. That stipulation is good without the nuclear talks then it is a waste of time.

Alex

You need to thoroughly think through what you say first. There are huge differences between Isreal and Iran. First off Iran has publically stated many many times that it will destroy Israel and any one who tries to help Israel. If you are a good liberal then that should scare you. that is the worst war this world would have ever seen. Nukes. Iran must be stopped from getting a weapon.

I actually have no problem with using nuclear energy for power supply. I think it is a good choice and it is reliable. It would surely solve our problems for electricty here in the US.

I honestly hope we can fix this diplomatically but so far it is not looking good. You have asian countries and the EU and the UN trying and getting no where. So the next option is force.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #149550

JR,

Do you really have the balls to compare a nuclear war with “immunization shots?” Are you freaking kidding me? I think maybe you watched too many WWIII movies in the 80’s. I know Patrick Swayze was a good actor in “Red Dawn” but give me a break.

So they can reach us with their nukes? Man, they must have great technology. Did they use the same Germans we did in the 40’s?

A note to all Conservatives…..

STOP READING THOSE STUPID “LEFT BEHIND” BOOKS! They are rotting your brains.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 19, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #149553

David:

I read that article. It is not too bad. I have to say the Korean problems are close to my heart. My wife is from there and she has more family still there. In fact some have been seperated by the division of Korea. I would love to see it reunified.

Now that being said. I think the article is a bit wrong. there are a lot of people in the government there who could not even come close to seeing reunification until Kim Il Jung is dead. Then they see possiblities of working towards it. One big fear is that it will change their standard of living. North Korea is absolut poverty (due to the communist ideology) and undeveloped. it is very much like it was at its inception. while south Korea has greatly industrialized to the point where it competes on a world market. they dont want to see all that change the way it did in German when their unification came.

OOPS sorry I am way off post well back on now

BOMB IRAN ;)

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #149555

vincent

Never said anything about nuclear war, just that if the choice is waiting for the big bang here -I’d rather it be handled over there. “..they can reach us with those nukes?…” With all the holes in the fence south of us, probably! What do you do now? Mahmoud is telling everyone who listens he wants to destroy another country, another race of people! Do you hate Bush so much that a little nuke in Tel Aviv or England or France or maybe one in a car in Dallas or San Diego is fine by you, so long as conservatives lose an election? It’s about survival. Hate the US the way it is? That’s what elections are for. Hate the current administration so much you’re willing to say Iran is not a threat just to be opposed? Not wise. With that thought process, you might not have a country to be angry at.

Posted by: JR at May 19, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #149556

Randall,

I liked your take on North Korea, except for this part…

“North Korea is absolut poverty (due to the communist ideology) and undeveloped”

That is far from the truth. They developled, and have been for years now. The problem is that that little bastard running things refuses to progress.

I guess you could say he is “traditional” right?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 19, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #149557

JR,

“Do you hate Bush so much that a little nuke in Tel Aviv or England or France or maybe one in a car in Dallas or San Diego is fine by you, so long as conservatives lose an election?”

Is there somewhere I spoke about elections? Please quote where I said it. I will be waiting……

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 19, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #149558

David

Thanks for the link, I’ve been wearing out my keyboard looking for a liberal hitpiece on President Bush. Who turned their head while N Korea threatened and blustered then finally blinked? Clinton! I know, lets find a madman, tell him it’s OK - we’ll give him all the technology he’ll need for nukes - but he has to “cross his heart and hope to die” that he won’t militarize them. Then, lets let him tell our President that he won’t allow any inspections. Smooth foreign policy there. Thank you Bill Clinton - Sandy Berger and Mad Madeline Albright. Yeah, it was Bushs’ fault. The innoculation analogy was a comparison based on your thought process. If there is no threat one can prove, don’t make decisions proactively. I appreciate the language lessons I get on this blog, so much intelligence that folks run out of common everyday language so they resort to name calling and swearing, again, thank you for the lesson.

Posted by: JR at May 19, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #149559

JR,

You do realize that Clinton has not been in office for 6 years right?

What has Bush done in the past 6 years?

Is that clean enough for you?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 19, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #149560

JR,

By the way, I am still waiting for that quote about the elections. The blog is really not that big right now, so one would think you could find it pretty easily.

Or you could admit that you misquoted me.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at May 19, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #149566

Vincent:

It is true that they have some development but compared to the size of country they are it is miniscule.

I also think Bush is taking the proper stance with North Korea.

From what I read and see there are many in Iran that are ready for regime change. They want a democracy. I even think there may be a better chance for a true democracy there then there is in Iraq. The cost would be large though but I think worth it. Freedom is hard to pin a price too.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #149568

Randall,

“From what I read and see there are many in Iran that are ready for regime change. They want a democracy. I even think there may be a better chance for a true democracy there then there is in Iraq. The cost would be large though but I think worth it. Freedom is hard to pin a price too.”

This time though we would be advised to let the Iranians do the heavy lifting.
We should help all we can, but we should let them earn their democracy.


Posted by: Rocky at May 19, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #149581

Diplomacy is the only option that is not going to get us stuck in another war.
The Stratigic strike will have the same net effect as an open invasion. If we bomb the sites that are doing this I believe we will have Iranian divisions pouring across the boarder into Iraq shortly after the planes land. They will go to where our troops are most accessable. There will also be a real serious rear area problem with Iraqi shia attacks and maybe some joining the sunis in an enemy of my enemy coalition.
The Israelies have the largest vested interest in Iran not possesing nuclear wepons and yet you hear very little from them, I wonder why?

Posted by: Ted at May 19, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #149590

Rocky:

I agree with you partially. I believe there to be a difference between Iranian society and Iraqian society. The Iranians seem to be much more developed socially, technologically and organizationally. I would expect that they would be much more able to participate if it came to that. I would say that I would have no problem helping to take out the current government as well as the radical Imams. (the imams who propose terror as a means to the end)

Things are different now then when we earned our democracy. The governments have a much more advanced technology now. Private people are not able to readily get it. When we fought for our independence we technology wise were on a even playing field. True the british had a better training and discipline but that anyone who works hard can catch up and over come.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #149592

Ted:

The Israelis have made it very clear they will not allow it to happen they will bomb. Also in the past we have had surgical strikes on military targets of other countries that did not cause war. This much I know if we go to war with Iran Iran will end up with a new government be it good or bad it will happen. I am sure the current government realizes this and that will be a strong deterent in starting something very large. they wish to live. they are truely cowards they do not mind others sacrificing their lives for the cause but they are way to important to do that themselves. (so they tell themselves)

Iran does not come any closer then Iraq does to having a military that is able to actually come close to holding their own against us.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #149596


I am for immediate invasion. The 130,000 troops we have in Iraq can take the Iranian army out in three or four weeks. We can go in, destroy their army, the infastructure and kill their religious leaders. The people will come out into the streets and praise Allah that we have liberated them. It will only cost us about 1.7 billion dollars. The Iranian oil will pay for everything else.

Posted by: jlw at May 19, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #149597

Randall,
I did not state nor do I believe that the outcome would be any different than it was in Iraq.
My question is that are we prepared for a tripled military commitmant? The strikes will lead to an open conflict because we are just over the boarder from them. I do not believe that most Iranians are currently overly happy with their government but this would galvanize them. They have a much more homogenous populace than the cobbled together Iraq ever did.
Any action that does not take into consideration the lessons we should be learning from our involvement in Iraq is not only foolhardy but unbeleivably idiotic.

Posted by: Ted at May 19, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #149608

David,

I am slow! I am very slow. In fact, my mother used to say it all the time, “Bruce is a slow”.

I am not rushing into war with Iran at all! My only point is that they will not react to our threats, they will not accept our offers. The only “diplomatic” path is through the people of Iran, who we must hope will be able to vote in a more moderate leadership.

Vincent, I am shocked that you wouldn’t say that North Korea is impoverished! If that’s not an impoverished country I’d like to see what you think is impoverished. Kim is just a smaller, weirder version of Mao Tse Tung. He is using the people of North Korea’s well-being to fund his drive to develop into a world power. Read “Mao”. It will shock you how much Kim emulates and imitates Mao’s China, right down to the cultural and religious purges.

Posted by: Bruce at May 19, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #149609

I understand what you are saying. I disagree with the thought that they will come into Iraq. They may want to but they are not even close to strong enough to confront us full on in that manner. We would wipe them out so quick and then we would have justification to finish the job.

I agree we need to learn from both the good and the bad of what happened in Iraq. We have seen where the populace are having demonstrations. This is very good for us. It tells us that the government is loosing its grip on some of the populace.

You are correct that we are not ready for a tripled commitment at this time. I hope they are uping there efforts to be ready. There is a very strong possibility that this will happen. I do not see Iran bowing to the UN, EU and US even if they are all in agreement as to what Iran needs to do. Iran has said they wont then I believe they wont.

I hope we implement a stronger armed forces recruitment or maybe a draft. this is the most important conflict we have been in since WWII. In my opinion.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #149611

That is because Kim was trained and helped by Mao. He spent years with the Chinese Communist while fighting the Japanese who had taken over Korea. It was this fighting that made him a hero to the average individual. they were obviously wrong but hindsight is 20/20.

I make the assumption that David does not know much about North Korea. Starvation is common and many still live like they did prior to the industrialization of South Korea.

My wife was born at the begining of this industrialization and when she was born she was born in a hut with a mud floor. She lived in one room and an out house that was shared by a large group of people. I do not have a problem with that many countries are that way but most are not that way because their government refused to do any real modernization.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #149613

I’m all for pre-emptive strikes as well. We essentially have little-to-no-other intelligent choices left. Talk is cheap. THEIR talk is nothing but threatening. They’ll do it, too; we can’t take the chances. “The price of poker just went up & is too high in this game”, as even Dr. Phil would say!

A nice laser strike would suit me just fine. Israel shouldn’t have to sweat their very existence just because all of their neighbors are borderline homicidal maniacs to put it nicely.

I hate to stoop so low but “Git-R-DONE!”

Posted by: Sabra at May 19, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #149614

This is in contradiction to some of my more left wing views but I believe there should be a draft, probably not for the same reasons you do.
As to Iran, there should be no doubt as to their response. We do have a democraticly elected nut job for president, we do not have a bloody, egomaniacal dictator in control there. We have a basically shiite population, we do not have a three way tug of war with the smallest group holding all the power. These differences alone should make any military action a last resort.
Let the diplomats hash this out for a while longer, let the threat of Israel doing what they will work, and let the rest of the world sanction them before we use one bomb or bullet. Also if congress will not act with a Declaration of War, not this abdication of responsibility they have come to favor, we do not go. Meet these criteria first and I will go to the nearest recruiter and demand to be let back in to the service.

Posted by: Ted at May 19, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #149615

Randall,

“Iran does not come any closer then Iraq does to having a military that is able to actually come close to holding their own against us.”

According to the CIA, Iran has a the ability to pull together military man power estimates of over 35 million men and women that are considered “fit” for duty.
They also have the 19th rated economy in the world, and have been sucking up to China.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#Military

“males age 18-49: 18,319,545
females age 18-49: 17,541,037 (2005 est.)”

jlw,

“I am for immediate invasion. The 130,000 troops we have in Iraq can take the Iranian army out in three or four weeks. We can go in, destroy their army, the infrastructure and kill their religious leaders. The people will come out into the streets and praise Allah that we have liberated them. It will only cost us about 1.7 billion dollars. The Iranian oil will pay for everything else.”

Boy, I sure hope you’re being sarcastic.

Because frankly that’s out there on Pluto.

Posted by: Rocky at May 19, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #149616

Sorry I copied the wrong numbers.

That should be;

“males age 18-49: 15,665,725
females age 18-49: 15,005,597 (2005 est.)”

These are the correct numbers that the CIA feels are fit for duty.

Posted by: Rocky at May 19, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #149621

Rocky

thanks for the numbers ver enlightening. My question would be how many trained? How technological is there army? Do they have the ability to actually stop one of our bombers (not even a handful of countries can do that). I know they are not able to actually penetrate one of our armoured tanks. Infact i believe we are the only ones who has weaponary that can penetrate the armor of one of our tanks. i realize a bomb droped on it would have a bad effect but that is different then fight with rounds. Yes they can get numbers but how long will the will to fight last when they die by the thousands and that is just our air. wait till they meet our better equipped and better trained forces.

A cake walk NO but very very doable yes. In the short term it is the long term that is hard to know what will happen.

Ted it would be nice to see both sides of the aisle agree on this. I hope it can but if it can’t I say that we must be willing to move anyway. i agree though keep it going diplomatically for now. who knows we may get lucky.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 19, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #149630

Randall,

Back during WW2 Chang Ki Shek was being interviewed. The interviewer was asking the Chinese leader about how the war was going and told Chang that the Japanese were killing twice as many Chinese than visa versa, the Generalissimo smiled and said (paraphrased) “good, soon they will run out of Japanese”.

My point being, if Iran has overwhelming numbers, it doesn’t really matter how technologically advanced they are (though they appear to spend over 4 billion dollars a year on defence), in an actual shooting war, our boots on the ground may not be enough.

Posted by: Rocky at May 19, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #149633

Thank you Randall,
I don’t believe, however, it is a matter of getting them to agree. It is a matter of getting them to do their jobs under the authority the Constitution places with them.
Check out Article 1 section 8. They have found it much easier to leave the resposibility and reprocussions with the executive. It is sad.
When the Constitution was written we had had enough of a military as projection of the will of the king. What we are devolving to is a military that is the projection of the political will of the executive. At this rate we are going to end up with a “regal” presidency. Maybe you don’t agree with this now but can you look to a democrat in office with the same regaurds?

Posted by: Ted at May 19, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #149674
Clinton gave the N Koreans all the equipment necessary to produce “peaceful” atomic energy.

…and none of it was used to produce a nuclear weapon. The weapons grade plutonium came from spent fuel rods that President Bush spooked that wack-job, Kim, into unsealing. The lesson for Mr. Bush is, If you’re going to talk tough, you’d better be able to back it up. Bush couldn’t — and still can’t.

Bush hasn’t even talked with Iran. He hasn’t even sat down with them.

And rightly so. This is not a US vs Iran issue. This is an issue between Iran and the Middle East region and ultimately the global community (even though the US may have to supply the bulk of the troops).

Bush is right to work with the EU and the UN on this because making it a personal thing between us and Iran would help Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 20, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #149689

Our President use of Adolph Hitler’s “great lie theory” - the political tactic where a leader fabricates “great lies” then “eternally” repeats them until a significant portion of the population comes to accept them as truth. And Bushy Boy does not require legitimate reasons to give to us, before we will acquiesce to the wasting of billions of tax dollars, & the sacrificing of thousands of folks, in wars based upon nothing but LIES.

Usually, A Real War is Fought between Two EQUALS, I don’t know what Bushy Boy was trying to tell us! What were all those air strikes meant for since the Iraq was already on knees, Destroyed by sanctions, and Iraqis already under siege! I would like to see Bushy Boy trying to stop Russia aiding militarily Iran. God Forbid if we ever touch China, Russia, or N.Korea.

BTW, Randall Jeremiah, you sound a 4 year old boy when you talk so easily about Go and Strike, without calculating that this time we are not going to topple Saddam. Iran have already Nukes, and Capabilities to Strike back double the intense and our guys would be Fried like chickens in the middle of the desert.

Coming to your Point about Diplomacy, You can’t tell Iran “you like or not but you’ve to accept what we are asking you to do otherwise we will strike you with Nukes”. This option you’ve to take off the Table if you want prevail the diplomacy. And don’t forget Iran is signatory of NPT and you have no proof that he wants to develop Nukes. And don’t fall from the chair if I’ll whisper you again in the ear… “Iran have already Nuke War Heads”

Now Coming to the Solution:: Destruction of Israel’s Nuclear Facilities and its Nukes and it will automatically unmotivate other Countries in the region to halt any effort to get same Nukes, as right now Only Israel with Bombs represents a Real threat in the Region.

Posted by: WarOnLiar at May 20, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #149692

Our President use of Adolph Hitler’s “great lie theory” - the political tactic where a leader fabricates “great lies” then “eternally” repeats them until a significant portion of the population comes to accept them as truth. And Bushy Boy does not require legitimate reasons to give to us, before we will acquiesce to the wasting of billions of tax dollars, & the sacrificing of thousands of folks, in wars based upon nothing but LIES.

Usually, A Real War is Fought between Two EQUALS, I donⴠknow what Bushy Boy was trying to tell us! What were all those air strikes meant for since the Iraq was already on knees, Destroyed by sanctions, and Iraqis already under siege! I would like to see Bushy Boy trying to stop Russia aiding militarily Iran. God Forbid if we ever touch China, Russia, or N.Korea.

BTW, Randall Jeremiah, you sound a 4 year old boy when you talk so easily about Go and Strike, without calculating that this time we are not going to topple Saddam. Iran have already Nukes, and Capabilities to Strike back double the intense and our guys would be Fried like chickens in the middle of the desert.

Coming to your Point about Diplomacy, You can’t tell Iran ‘You like or not but you’ve to accept what we are asking you to do otherwise we will strike you with Nukes’ This option you’ve to take off the Table if you want prevail the diplomacy. And don’t forget Iran is signatory of NPT and you have no proof that they want to develop Nukes. And don’t fall from the chair if I’ll whisper you again in ear that Iran have already Nuke War Heads.

Now Coming to the Solution:: Destruction of Israel’s Nuclear Facilities and its Nukes and it will automatically unmotivate other Countries in the region to halt any effort to get same Nukes, as right now Only Israel with Bombs represents a Real threat in the Region.

Posted by: WarOnLiar at May 20, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #149751

AP

I wish Bush did back it up. the problem was that everyone was saying that they were two years or more out and then suddenly they have them. what next start a war have south korea pay with a nuclear bomb on their doorstep. sure north korea could not reach us with a bomb but they could japan or south korea.

I do agree that bush needs to work with the world bodies so that we can have the world backing us if things go bad.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 20, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #149756

Randall,

“what next start a war have south korea pay with a nuclear bomb on their doorstep.”

South Korea already has a nuclear bomb on their “doorstep”.

It’s time for Mr. Bush to take the nuclear option off the table.
It’s time to exert some of his “political capital”, and ask Russia and China to do the same.
It’s also time for the EU and Russia and China to start throwing some of their considerable weight around with North Korea and Iran.
The rouge nations need to be politely shown the error of their ways.

We aren’t done in Afghanistan or Iraq, there is no possible way we should be saber rattling with N. Korea or Iran, unless we truely want to push this into a global conflict.

IMHO, it’s past time for all of us to take a collective Valium, lose the hyperbole, and sit down and talk.

Posted by: Rocky at May 20, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #149780

Rocky:

I do not think China cares that much. I believe they have more pull then they are using. Infact from what I notice they would not mind Iran having Nukes.

You say politely shown the error of their way. the big question is HOW? with out the threat of force what do we have that will give them a reason to listen?

why should we take off the nuclear option. We may have to use them to get to the bunkers that hold the nuclear facility. Bunker busters I believe they nuclear. I may be wrong.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 20, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #149793

Randall,

“why should we take off the nuclear option. We may have to use them to get to the bunkers that hold the nuclear facility.”

I don’t know if you are old enough to remember “MAAD”, and “Duck and Cover”. I lived through it, and don’t want to live through it again.

IMHO, nuclear weapons are useless, except to scare the bejeezus out of the public. It only takes one to start the snowball rolling, and frankly I don’t see real cool heads around where the button lives.
I have made no bones about my distrust of Mr. Bush. I think that he has consistently shown he is capable of making bad decisions when it counts the most.
Truth be known, I would rather have Barry Goldwater’s finger over the button than George Bush’s.

Posted by: Rocky at May 20, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #149799

To start with diplomacy only works when there is a reasonable ammount of simular perspective and idiology. The middle eastern perspective is so
radicly different than ours that it is totaly alien
to most americans. I wont go into the religous
differences. They go along far enough to see a profit or to achieve a goal (N Korea), (Viet Nam)
USSR to a large extent China. But in the long run
and without all the libral clap trap, diplomacy doesn’t work 80% of the time. I know I will get
a barrage of coments to the contrary, but history
shows the proof. As Teddy said speak softly and carry a big stick.

Posted by: Montie R at May 20, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #149818

So, Montie, your solution is to kill them all and let God sort them out? Hmmmm?

Posted by: Rocky at May 21, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #150057

JR,

Clinton gave the N Koreans all the equipment necessary to produce “peaceful” atomic energy. If he hadn’t given in to their bluster, they may well be years farther behind in enrichment.

Please, have a look at the actual KEDO Power Plant construction site: it was not finished! No way NK could have used it to accelerate their nukes program.

Pakistan, now an “good” US friend, have contributed to NK nukes program.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2006 7:02 AM
Comment #150058

Randall,

I know that liberals hate civilian casualties.

You don’t have to be liberal, just human. How one could not hate innocent children & womens being killed???
I really hope that republicans (as opposed to liberals) hate civilian casualties too.
Otherwise, half of america could go to hell, I wont miss them.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2006 7:08 AM
Comment #150139

Philippe

I know you must understand when someone makes a statement that is meant to emphasize a point. I made that statement about civilian casualties because I here in the news about that all the time. I and as far as I know any conservative hates casualties of the civilian or military nature. The terrorist do not have such a problem with them. In fact they like them they look forward to them they are actually out for casualties the more the better. They want civilians to die. They are not strong enough to have any real effect on the military so they go after civilians. That helps to produce the most fear in people.

My point is that the liberal side of the political spectrum cries out a lot about civilian casualties. If they do care then they should be for stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons because a whole city full of civilian casualties would be no good.

I am sorry that you have such bile towards about half of America. It is sad.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 22, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #150141

Rocky:

I understand you do not trust Bush. I do. I agree that nuclear war would be devastating to the entire world. I do not think we should have one. I do think we can use bunker busters which I believe are low level nukes to destroy underground facilities. We need to destroy the plants if they are making nukes. If there are other ways great more power to them then. I say use them if I am wrong about bunker busters being nukes then great. I would prefer never to use them again.

I will say this I think even to a mad man like the iranian guy he worries that we will blow him off the face of the planet. If we do that then he will have no one following him any more. I think Nukes scare more then just the public they will scare him as well.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 22, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #150156

Randall,

I and as far as I know any conservative hates casualties of the civilian or military nature. The terrorist do not have such a problem with them.

And still more Iraqis died *after* US invaded Iraq than iraquis were killed by terrorists *before*.
Yeah, I know, better there than on US soil.
Exporting your terror war on foreign civilians cities. Yes, high moral doctrine.

But maybe not all civilians casualties are equals?

I do think we can use bunker busters which I believe are low level nukes to destroy underground facilities.

Don’t you worry about the message sent by actually using nukes (even low level ones)?

Don’t be suprised that every nation on earth will rush to get their or expand their current stockpiles as soon as the most powerfull nation break the NPT by using nukes, mini or not, after more than 60 years of nuclear peace!

We need to destroy the plants if they are making nukes.

We need to be sure about that BEFORE!
You don’t shot first and talk after with nukes.
Except when you’re a too fearfull or moral-less leader.

I am sorry that you have such bile towards about half of America. It is sad.

Indeed, even if it’s not as huge as half of americans, I’m pretty sad that some of them could consider using nukes as a first strike against a nation that didn’t attack you not *that* evil.
Sad and scary.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #150170

Philippe:

You do realize that I said if they are producing them. Yes I am okay to use them if that is the ONLY way. I am not worried about them attacking us first. They already made statements that they will kill Israel and any one who supports them. They have made this quite clear. I do not see the wisdom in waiting until they use a nuke on Tel Aviv.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 22, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #150215

Randall,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

Posted by: Rocky at May 22, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #150310

good link thanks Rocky

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 22, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #150884

Bunker busters refer to the style of delivery rather as much as the warhead on the munitions. Currently the bunker busters in production use powerful conventional explosives as the warhead. Certainly low-yield nukes would be just as effective, if not more including temporary fallout inside the bunker. However the political and strategic costs at this time far outweigh the possible increase in efficiency.

Unfortunately it appears that Russia may not be as stalwart on preventing an Iranian bomb as the US. According to an article in the April 22nd issue of The Economist, Putin appears to be adopting policies that distinguish Russia from US policies. The article is humurously titled, Russia is not a piece of furniture.

China may have a lot of vested interest in dealing with the likely mentally unstable Kim Jong Il, but little with Iran. India and Pakistan are much more present concerns. Iran is not engaging in any nuclear amibitions that are absolutely wrong, just very contrary to EU and USA interests. In the modern world having nuclear weapons is one of the perceived requirements of real global power.

Also I would not worry about Iran launching a nuke at Tel Aviv. Khameini depends on religious radicals and anti-Zionists for support, but has proven himself a pragmatist otherwise. The statements desiring the destruction of Israel are as much rabble rousing rhetoric as the forty-seven times a speech Bush mentions God. It is cynical pandering to religious fanatics in both nations.

As for an invasion, Iran is going to be a much more involved campaign than Iraq. It is not weakened by ten years of sanctions and a previous pounding in an engagement ten years prior. Also, Iraq had almost no friends in the world. Iran has many possible friends and an invasion would galvanize a much more unified population. Have no illusions, the citizens of Iraq did not line the streets like so many Parisians when we entered Baghdad.

Someone mentioned testing, which is a touchy subject. If we observe a surface or subterranean nuclear detonation in the Indian Ocean, there are many possible suspects. Rather sketchy way of possibly starting a religious or geo-political crisis in terms of a pre-emptive strike.

Speaking of reform in Iran, the reformists are still decades from creating serious change. However the developement of nuclear weapons could in fact accelerate change. True prosperity has often been the predecessor of peaceful political change. My recommendation is continued pressure and providing Israel the coordinates and go ahead from time to time for various surgical strikes.

Posted by: Schwick at May 24, 2006 12:43 PM
Post a comment