Iran Admits It Could Pull Nuke Trigger on US, Israel

[dre]

So you would be comfortable with the American Sec'y of State saying that "Canada should be wiped off the face of the earth"?

No less comfortable than if a foreign head of state described Canada and its inhabitants as "evil".

[bush_cheney2004]

No less comfortable than if a foreign head of state described Canada and its inhabitants as "evil".

But that is a far more benign and passive remark. Coupled with means and intent, the more beligerent rhetoric (aimed at Israel) would not be ignored in Canada, which seems to particularly value international love and approval. Just look at all the panty knots just from losing a UNSC member vote.

"Death to America" is a slogan...."Death to Israel" is a call to arms.

[Moonlight Graham]

So you would be comfortable with the American Sec'y of State saying that "Canada should be wiped off the face of the earth"?

Well for one, Ahmadinejad never said that. You are referring with the remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map", which was mistranslated in the western MSM. the more accurate translation was that israel should "vanish from the pages of time". a bit less aggressive.

But no i wouldn't be enthralled if the US sec of state said what you remarked. However, i wouldn't give much of a rats behind because what are you gonna do? Nuke us? wahahahaa! You certainly wouldn't do it if we had nukes.

[jbg]

the more accurate translation was that israel should "vanish from the pages of time". a bit less aggressive.

How would you feel if I had you over to dinner and as a toast said you should "vanish from the pages of time"?

[Slim]

And our unconditional support for one side has made things worse over there anyhow. If we are going to involve ourselves it should be as agents of international law, and we should condemn transgressions by both sides when they occur and put heavy pressure on both sides to improve their behavior. If we cant do that, then I suggest we disengage and let the cards fall where they may.

Absolutely agree. The West should (for its own sake, at least) stop sticking its nose in this particular beehive.

How would you feel if I had you over to dinner and as a toast said you should "vanish from the pages of time"?

Ugh. I'm getting sick of this repeated argument that Ahmadinejad made a threat to destry Israel. He didn't. There was a misinterpretation initially, and he never actually meant a violent threat. In context, he was agreeing with the Imam Khameini's statement that Israel's illegal (and it is illegal) occupation should end, and Palestinians should get to vote, etc.

So, please, enough with that particular quote.

Now then.

As for Iran and nuclear weapons... there is no solid evidence they have any, or are developing any. There isn't any solid evidence they have, or are, enriching uranium to such a point where it is useful for weaponization, correct?

But, if I was Iran, I sure as hell would be leaving the option on the table. I personally have no doubt that they are getting as close to nuclear weapon production as possible (i.e. enriching uranium to a certain point, but still having the capabilities of enriching further to weaponization) so that it's still legal but you have the option to produce nuclear weapons in a relatively short period of time. Why wouldn't they want it? Hell, Israel has hundreds of the things, and is extremely hostile to Iran. The US hawks are always raving about war with Iran. If I was in charge there, I would sure as hell want the ability to create the nuclear deterrent real quick if I needed it.

For a offensive weapon, though? Absurd. What possible need do they have for offensive nukes? Are they going to launch a pre-emptive and suicidal strike on Israel? God no.

[Moonlight Graham]

How would you feel if I had you over to dinner and as a toast said you should "vanish from the pages of time"?

I'd say "geez you had me over for dinner just to crap on me??"

Then I'd take my dessert and leave.

[wulf42]

Unfortunately the time for a strike on Iran has come and gone, Iran will build up it's Nuclear Arsenal and at some point (hopefully not in my lifetime) a Nuclear war on some level is going to occur and with Western Societies slowly withering away the future doesn't look very promising.

Edited October 22, 2010 by wulf42

[dre]

Unfortunately the time for a strike on Iran has come and gone, Iran will build up it's Nuclear Arsenal and at some point (hopefully not in my lifetime) a Nuclear war on some level is going to occur and with Western Societies slowly withering away the future doesn't look very promising.

Who knows. At these point all we can do is make wild guesses. We have no idea if Iran has weapons programs, and we have no idea what their intentions are.

What we should do is drop our demand that they hault enrichment, in exchange for proper IAEA access to their facilities.

[Moonlight Graham]

Unfortunately the time for a strike on Iran has come and gone, Iran will build up it's Nuclear Arsenal and at some point (hopefully not in my lifetime) a Nuclear war on some level is going to occur and with Western Societies slowly withering away the future doesn't look very promising.

lol what?? We survived the Cold War without a nuclear war, i think we'll probably be good.

[DogOnPorch]

lol what?? We survived the Cold War without a nuclear war, i think we'll probably be good.

The Cold War as such didn't end...the Soviet Union fell. Two different things.

[Slim]

Who knows. At these point all we can do is make wild guesses. We have no idea if Iran has weapons programs, and we have no idea what their intentions are.

I disagree. It's not hard to make some educated guesses based on common sense and simply putting ourselves in their shoes, so to speak.

See my earlier post for an example.

[dre]

I disagree. It's not hard to make some educated guesses based on common sense and simply putting ourselves in their shoes, so to speak.

See my earlier post for an example.

Its incredibly stupid to start a war over guesses. Iraq taught us how much those guesses based on "common sense" were worth. THAT guess cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of human lives.

This time a little due diligence in advance might be nice.

[Slim]

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not advocating war with Iran. That's probably a worse decision than invading Iraq was.

But the Iraq war was not based on 'common sense' guesses. That was manufactured excuses at work there. In fact, if common sense was used, there never would have been an Iraq war.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get across is that rational thought tells us what Iran's motives might be. And so far there's nothing to get worked up over.

[dre]

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not advocating war with Iran. That's probably a worse decision than invading Iraq was.

But the Iraq war was not based on 'common sense' guesses. That was manufactured excuses at work there. In fact, if common sense was used, there never would have been an Iraq war.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get across is that rational thought tells us what Iran's motives might be. And so far there's nothing to get worked up over.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I'm not advocating war with Iran. That's probably a worse decision than invading Iraq was.

Ok fair enough. I misunderstood.

But the Iraq war was not based on 'common sense' guesses. That was manufactured excuses at work there. In fact, if common sense was used, there never would have been an Iraq war.

There was some valid reasons to think Sadam had active programs. People assumed that since he threw out inspectors in the 90's that he must have had something to hide. "Of COURSE hes making WMD's!", people said. Even intelligence agencies fell for that lazy "conventional wisdom", so much that they described the assertion as a "slam dunk" even though we now know that they had never uncovered any credible evidence that showed that. Things are not always as they seem.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get across is that rational thought tells us what Iran's motives might be. And so far there's nothing to get worked up over.

In any case the way to handle this is rooted in international law. We need to drop our demand that Iran stops enrichment... that demand is illegal and unreasonable. Iran or any other NPT signatory can legally enrich unranium, as long as it allows the IAEA to monitor their programs (which Iran has done in the past).

So we drop the idiotic demands that they halt enrichment, and we drop all sanctions against them, in exchange for Iran allowing access to IAEA monitors.

Edited October 22, 2010 by dre

[wulf42]

lol what?? We survived the Cold War without a nuclear war, i think we'll probably be good.

We survived the Cold War because both Camps fully understood the effects of a Nuclear War and both sides despite Political differences knew it was a no win deal so basic Human self preservation saved the day. Now you have a different situation developing where Religious fanatics (who consider dying in some warped cause a great thing)are getting their hands on Nukes and squaring off against a Country (Israel) who will not hesitate for one second to retaliate with it's own Nuclear force (estimated to be between 200-400 Warheads) if provoked known as the "Sampson Option"! Look what the Israeli's did to Lebanon? they bombed the living crap out of them and that was just for kidnapping a Soldier. I see no good things happening in the world in the near future,the world is running out of natural resources,Western economies are crumbling and on top of all that you have all these new players arming to the teeth and forming Alliances such as N Korea-Iran-Venezuela-Syria not to mention a growing giant China quietly arming to the eyeballs while Western Countries like Britain slash their Military in half. So unfortunately i don t think we will be good and wouldn't make to many long range plans for the future.

Edited October 22, 2010 by wulf42

[Slim]

There was some valid reasons to think Sadam had active programs. People assumed that since he threw out inspectors in the 90's that he must have had something to hide. "Of COURSE hes making WMD's!", people said. Even intelligence agencies fell for that lazy "conventional wisdom", so much that they described the assertion as a "slam dunk" even though we now know that they had never uncovered any credible evidence that showed that. Things are not always as they seem.

But in 2002 the IAEI was allowed back in for examination of Iraq's weapons program, and found nothing. If everyone would have listened to them and NOT the Bush administration, things would have (hopefully) gone differently.

There was no logical reason (using the WMD argument) to invade. But of course it was never really about WMDs.

In any case the way to handle this is rooted in international law. We need to drop our demand that Iran stops enrichment... that demand is illegal and unreasonable. Iran or any other NPT signatory can legally enrich unranium, as long as it allows the IAEA to monitor their programs (which Iran has done in the past).

So we drop the idiotic demands that they halt enrichment, and we drop all sanctions against them, in exchange for Iran allowing access to IAEA monitors.

Absolutely 100% agree here. It's a shame that the West doesn't act a lot more logical about this issue (which is, in the big scheme of things, pretty damn minor).

[bush_cheney2004]

But in 2002 the IAEI was allowed back in for examination of Iraq's weapons program, and found nothing. If everyone would have listened to them and NOT the Bush administration, things would have (hopefully) gone differently.

Ahem...the only reason that the IAEA was "allowed back in" was because the UK/US went camping in the Kuwaiti desert with about 200,000 troops.

There was no logical reason (using the WMD argument) to invade. But of course it was never really about WMDs.

It was the perfect pretext to use, as Iraq was in material breach of Gulf War surrender instruments.

[GostHacked]

Ahem...the only reason that the IAEA was "allowed back in" was because the UK/US went camping in the Kuwaiti desert with about 200,000 troops.

And yet nothing was found.

It was the perfect pretext to use, as Iraq was in material breach of Gulf War surrender instruments.

Yeah, because if they went in for Regime Change (yes official US policy) no one would have bought it. And you yourself have admitted that the WMDs is a no go, because of the policy the US had.

Iraq could not restart it's nuclear program after Israel took out the Osarik reactor. But do tell, what were those breaches exactly?

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet nothing was found.

Wrong...they found Saddam cowering in a spider hole.

Yeah, because if they went in for Regime Change (yes official US policy) no one would have bought it. And you yourself have admitted that the WMDs is a no go, because of the policy the US had.

WMDs were the pretext...very effective. Mission accomplished....next!

Iraq could not restart it's nuclear program after Israel took out the Osarik reactor. But do tell, what were those breaches exactly?

Israel had to do the job right after Iran dicked it up. As for the breaches, ask Hans Blix about documented violations and non-compliance.

[GostHacked]

Wrong...they found Saddam cowering in a spider hole.

The guys at IAEA found Saddam?

WMDs were the pretext...very effective. Mission accomplished....next!

\

So what was it, official policy for regime change .. or WMDs....

Israel had to do the job right after Iran dicked it up. As for the breaches, ask Hans Blix about documented violations and non-compliance.

Hans Blix found nothing. Which was expected.

[bush_cheney2004]

The guys at IAEA found Saddam?

Yes...they found Saddam out of compliance.

So what was it, official policy for regime change .. or WMDs....

Both...since "we" were already there....saves an extra trip.

Hans Blix found nothing. Which was expected.

Bullpuckey....Blix and friends found missiles with extended ranges, left-over artillery shells, pre-cursor chemicals, etc.

Edited October 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Yes...they found Saddam out of compliance.

Both...since "we" were already there....saves an extra trip.

Bullpuckey....Blix and friends found missiles with extended ranges, left-over artillery shells, pre-cursor chemicals, etc.

The claim wasnt that Saddam was "out of compliance". It was that Iraq had active WMD and Nuclear programs that posed an imminent threat to the US.

And the US borrowed trillions of dollars to find that junk youre talking about and 1/2 of it was stuff the UN already knew about.

[bush_cheney2004]

The claim wasnt that Saddam was "out of compliance". It was that Iraq had active WMD and Nuclear programs that posed an imminent threat to the US.

Correct....and it worked. Ding dong...Saddam is dead.

And the US borrowed trillions of dollars to find that junk youre talking about and 1/2 of it was stuff the UN already knew about.

Big deal...you should see how much we pissed away for the Cold War.

[dre]

Correct....and it worked. Ding dong...Saddam is dead.

Big deal...you should see how much we pissed away for the Cold War.

Yup, no problem eh? Just dump the cost on your kids.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup, no problem eh? Just dump the cost on your kids.

...and their kids...and their kids...and so on. Nobody ever has to pay it all off....haven't you figured this out yet?