Your view on the US handling of Iran

[Coda]

Here is your chance to not be a Monday morning quarterback. The US has been trying to keep Nukes out of Irans hands through negotiations so far.

Are you in favor of the US position? If yes, why? If no, what would you change?

Would you take the threat of military action off the table?
Would you allow Iran to get the bomb?

I think most of you can guess my position. I'm keeping mum for now because I really do want to know where you all stand without turning this into another bash the republican thread.

[sonic1]

No coda, the game is called bash the Coda. There are republicans here who don't get bashed about like you do, so maybe it is a little something more than just your party affiliation.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Coda

Would you take the threat of military action off the table?
Would you allow Iran to get the bomb?

No and no.

[Coda]

Sonic it would be nice to know folks opinions of things unfiltered by politics and the press. Surely you agree?

Do you have an opinion on how the US is handling Iran? Is this too hard a topic to tackle without a white paper from the DNC?

[Scott Dolan]

Are you in favor of the US position?

Which position?

Would you take the threat of military action off the table?

Yes. For now.

Would you allow Iran to get the bomb?

I wouldn't want them to have a bomb.

[Al in NYC]

We should leave Iran the fuck alone. Of course we should have left them the fuck alone back in 1953, but we didn't, which is the cause of all of the subsequent mess. But, of course, the U.S. is the sole arbiter of who does and doesn't get the big bombs.

I swear, this acting as policeman to the world (well, not really policeman, since police are constrained by laws, more like whiny but threatening greedy thug) has gotten so old and cost us so much, and what do we have to show for it?

[rollhead]

I belong to the "Cruise Missile a Month" club. Just drop a cruise missile down an air duct at the Iran uranium refinery plant at Isfahan-- when it moves, drop another one down the new vent. Some months you might have to use a bunker buster, or perhaps a "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...animation.html

It's like "Wack a Mole."





That's not to say I am a hawk. I am what Jack Kemp used to call a "heavily armed dove."

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Coda

Is this too hard a topic to tackle without a white paper from the DNC?

We can't wait to hear what Ann Coulter has whispered in your ear.

[Coda]

Scott: I'm surprised that you're unaware of the current US position. We've put together a package of incentives and penalties (details not fully known) and have indicated that we'll enter into direct talks with Iran. The details that have leaked out include supplying them with technology in exchange for transparancy.

If you take the implied threat off the table, in what circumstances would you reneg on that pledge?

Al - Do you feel that Irans statement to wipe Israel of the map worrisome? How about their exporting of terrorism? Do you really see the US as evil and Iran as peaceful?

Rollhead: Funny. (really). Ann is sweet when she's not on TV.

[sonic1]

I for one don't trust my knowledge of Iran and the relationship between Iran and the rest of the involved nations. It is a complex issue, and I am reluctant to jump on any ship. There seems to be a lot of understory here. Until I have any idea what is going on there, I am not committed to any ideals abour Iran. I will say that Iran is a troublesome country, but then again, so is the US.

[Pedantic Wretch]

I second Al's position: the US has no right to dictate who can or cannot develop nuclear weapons. Let us remember that the US is the only country which has ever actually dropped a nuclear bomb in a war situation.

[moneyp]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

I second Al's position: the US has no right to dictate who can or cannot develop nuclear weapons. Let us remember that the US is the only country which has ever actually dropped a nuclear bomb in a war situation.

Right, shmight. The question is one of practicality.

Is it in the best interest of the world for yet another country to have nuclear weapons? No.

Is any other country going to step up and do something about making that not happen? Probably not.

"Don't have the right." Please. In the case of nukes, focusing on what's fair and what is petty and naive when considering the consequences. And just because the U.S. is the only country to use the bomb doesn't mean we'll be the last.

[jesus marion joseph]

I heard an interesting theory (can't remember what radio program, I was in the car) in which a caller opined that Iran was not really interested in having a bomb, becase that would mean that they wouldn't be in a position to complain when other, smaller nations in the region sought the same, which nations would then be on a more or less equal tactical footing with Iran, which currently is a much larger, more pawerful country than most (points for longest run-on sentence of the day).

I'm not sure that I fully subscribe to that opinion, but it was interesting to think about. Frankly, I think the current regime in Iran is crazy not to seek full relations with the US as a long term goal, and vice versa. I think they (Iran) could possibly be a moderating influence in the region if they choose to, which could lead to more international prominence in diplomatic circles, I would think.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Coda

Scott: I'm surprised that you're unaware of the current US position. We've put together a package of incentives and penalties (details not fully known) and have indicated that we'll enter into direct talks with Iran. The details that have leaked out include supplying them with technology in exchange for transparancy.

Yeah, I had heard this or that, but have to readily admit I have paid very little attention to the news this week.

Just going with this very brief outline you've given, I'd say I'm in favor of it. But I'll have to check a bit further into it.

If you take the implied threat off the table, in what circumstances would you reneg on that pledge?

It all depends. Right now we are simply not capable militarily of undertaking such action.

I see this all as one really big non-story. Ahmadinejad rattles the saber, Bush rattles the saber. Rinse and repeat. Two blowhards making noise just for the hell of it. It all makes for good theatre and awesome paydays for the oil futures boys, but will ultimately result in very little.

Do you feel that Irans statement to wipe Israel of the map worrisome?

No. Who in that region HASN'T said something to that effect. Israels biggest problem is right there in their own front yard.

How about their exporting of terrorism?

Hey, it's the Middle Eastern way.

Do you really see the US as evil and Iran as peaceful?

Nope. But I also don't see the U.S. as some angel sent from heaven to get those filthy, evil heathens in Iran right.

It's a little more complex than that.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by mone peterson

Is it in the best interest of the world for yet another country to have nuclear weapons? No.

This statement seems to imply that the 'interest of the world' coincides with the interest of the United States, but, as Al pointed out, the pretence of the US being a 'global policeman' does not hold up. (It is quite possible that this whole 'crisis' has been manufactured by the US government in order to give it a pretext for further attempts to secure the future of its oil supplies, but that's another argument.)

From Iran's position, it is surrounded by potential enemies which are already armed with nukes (such as Israel, which receives overwhelming US support). It is quite reasonable for it to want to develop its own. The US has lost credibility as an intervening power, even with its European allies; any further attempts to intervene in the Middle East will only make the situation worse, as the continued military presence in Iraq demonstrates.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Coda

Al - Do you feel that Irans statement to wipe Israel of the map worrisome?

I would if I thought they meant it as anything more than chest-thumping, or could actually do it, but Israel is - by far - the most powerful country in the region, with its own nuclear arsenal and the backing of the world's only superpower.

Originally Posted by Coda

How about their exporting of terrorism? Do you really see the US as evil and Iran as peaceful?

Well, the U.S. has been pretty good at spreading terror in populations throughout the world or in supporting regimes who do, including Iran let us not forget. Other than some funding to groups opposed to Israeli policy, has anyone connected Iran to any terrorist actions? Are they any more an "exporter of terrorism" than Iraq was?

Your next question is a bit simplistic (and obviously loaded), and I don't think it's anything like an either/or situation. Of course I don't view the Islamist regime in Iran as wonderful folks, certainly not a regime I would support or would ever want to live under (but then I'm not Iranian, am I?). But your question asks if I view Iran as "peaceful," and I have to say that I find them a whole hell of a lot more peaceful than my country. After all, unlike us, they haven't attacked anyone, let alone staged an unprovoked invasion and occupation of another country. So why fuck with Iran yet again? Haven't we done enough damage there, and elsewhere in that part of the world, already?

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

(It is quite possible that this whole 'crisis' has been manufactured by the US government in order to give it a pretext for further attempts to secure the future of its oil supplies, but that's another argument.)

Yea, this the one thing that makes me pause when it comes to my "Cruise Missile a Month" plan.

[GoodSpeak]

To quote the Fascist Barbie, er, sorry...the crusader of truth:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

[groover]

Maybe the U.S. should set a good example and get rid of some of it's nukes. Are they still really necessary? Don't we have some pretty powerful conventional explosives at our disposal, without all that nasty radioactivity that lingers and lingers?

Published on Thursday, June 8 2006 by the International Herald Tribune

Don't Forget Those Other 27,000 Nukes
by Hans Blix

Stockholm, Sweden -- During the Cold War, it proved possible to reach many significant agreements on disarmament. Why does it seem so impossible now, when the great powers no longer feel threatened by one another?

Almost all the talk these days is about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to states like Iran and North Korea, or to terrorists. Foreign ministers meet again and again, concerned that Iran has enriched a few milligrams of uranium to a 4 percent level.

Some want to start waving the stick immediately. They are convinced that Iran will eventually violate its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to forego nuclear weapons.

While it's desirable that the foreign ministers talk about Iran, they don't seem to devote any thought to the fact that there are still some 27,000 real nuclear weapons in the United States, Russia and other states, and that many of these are on hair-trigger alert.

Nor do the ministers seem to realize that the determination they express to reduce the nuclear threat is diminished by their failure to take seriously their commitment, made within the framework of the NPT, to move toward the reduction and elimination of their own nuclear arsenals.

The stagnation in global disarmament is only part of the picture. In the United States, military authorities want new types of nuclear weapons; in Britain, the government is considering the replacement, at tremendous cost, of one generation of nuclear weapons by another - as defense against whom?

Last year a UN summit of heads of states and governments failed to adopt a single recommendation on how to attain further disarmament or prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. For nearly a decade, work at the disarmament conference in Geneva has stood still. It is time for a revival.

One can well understand that policymakers in the United States, as elsewhere, feel disappointment and concern that the global instruments against nuclear proliferation - the NPT and international inspection - have proved to be insufficient to stop Iraq, North Korea, Libya and possibly Iran on their way to nuclear weapons.

This may help explain their inclination to use the enormous military potential of the U.S. as either a threat or a direct means of preventing proliferation.

However, after three years of a costly and criticized war in Iraq to destroy weapons that did not exist, doubts are beginning to arise about the military method, and a greater readiness may emerge to try global cooperation once again to reduce and eventually eliminate weapons of mass destruction.

A report with 60 concrete recommendations to the states of the world on what they could do to free themselves from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, worked out by an independent international commission of which I was the chairman, is now available at www.wmdcommission.org.
Apart from proposals for measures to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to more states and terrorists, the report points to two measures that could turn current concerns about renewed arms races into new hopes for common security. In both cases, success would depend on the United States.

A U.S. ratification of the comprehensive test-ban treaty would, in all likelihood, lead other states to ratify and bring all such tests to an end, making the development of nuclear weapons more difficult. Leaving the treaty in limbo, as has been done since 1996, is to risk new weapons testing.

The second measure would be to conclude an internationally verified agreement to cut off the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes.

This would close the tap everywhere for more weapons material and would be of special importance if an agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States were to give India access to more uranium than it has at the moment.

It is positive that the U.S. has recently presented a draft cutoff agreement, but hard to understand why this agreement does not include international inspection. Do the drafters think that the recent record of national intelligence indicates that international verification is superfluous?



Hans Blix is a former chief UN weapons inspector.

© 2006 The International Herald Tribune

[Scott Dolan]

Fuck Hans Blix.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Fuck Hans Blix.

And to think I was afraid you were going soft in your old age, Scott!