Rice Presses U.N. to Confront Defiant Iran

[fossten]

I don't know you at all so I'm not sure about your character but it seems you REALLY look too far into any post anyone says. Of course some of the things I've said are unworkeable....Clearly Iran (or N Korea) would never let anyone into their country to run a nuclear facility. I'm just tossing out ideas for a situtation that people will roundly criticize no matter which way GWB handles it. Did I forget about what the Iranian leader says? No..if you read my post I said the stuff that comes out of his mouth is crazy. I think if you follow these types of situation, I shouldn't have to re-iterate what Khatami says to prove my point. He says outlandish stuff. Perhaps he and Jong went to the same finishing school? And yes, any nation that wants nuclear power should be allowed to have it. BUT (just like I said in my post..you must have missed it..again) can they be trusted to use it just for power generation? In Irans case (as I said in my post) I'm not so sure of that. You have a wonderful way of twisting posts around, especially when my point of view is almost the same as yours. Israel DOES hate Iran. That's what my post said. In no way did I "blame" Israel. It's a fact. Because of the relationship between Iran-Israel, it puts the US in a delicate situation. You don't agree? I'm sure the US really doesn't WANT to go to Iran, since they are engaged in a couple of conflicts already. But they WILL go to Iran to defend Israel. I even said if the US attacks Iran the fallout would be somewhat better for Israel than if Israel did it themselves. I think we are in agreement on the topic here, you just look for ways to twist it around and argue. Sounds like a difficul way to build consensus, but I guess if that's your way then so be it. Maybe point form would be less confusing for you? Let me try again.

1) Iran wants nuclear power to generate electricity to further develop their country.
2) It's not likely they can be trusted to ONLY use it for energy because Khatami comes off as crazy.
3) Because of this, it puts the US in a delicate situation. DO they attack Iran and risk further turmoil in the mideast? Or do they NOT attack Iran and risk further turmoil in the mideast.
4) Israel may attack 1st. This may cause greater turmoil than if the US attacked 1st.
5) Any attack may unite Arab resolve (including terrorist groups) in the mideast against Israel and the US. As it is right now, Arabs countries (and terrorist groups) are only loosely aligned as a whole.
6) The US is behind the 8-ball, and GWB will be criticized regardless of his decision.

Does that make more sense to you? Those are all FACTS. Perhaps that is easier for you to understand. Oh..and I certainly didn't forget 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers where from a US ally country, Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. Or Iran. Or Syria. Nope..a US ally. And that's a FACT too.

Oh..and not sure why I get painted as a liberal when my beliefs are more or less the same as yours on this topic. Heck, I'm not even American. (I voted Conservative in my country last time, and will again on Jan 23rd) Perhaps this is why I'm able to see both sides more clearly, since I don't have any affiliation to either party, much less the country. At any rate, thanks for replying to my post.

If exposing logical flaws and inherent twisting and bias is reading too much into people's posts, then that's too bad. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. In fact, if you read the post where I posed the question, you will see that it was directed at Johnny, not you. Johnny hasn't answered, probably because he doesn't know any answers, so I'll let the fact that you jumped in slide - no problem. Nevertheless, your statement that Israel hates Iran was clearly associated with bias and questioning whether or not clear information about Iran's nuke program could be presented. (That's laughable, especially now that the rest of the world is on board with the information, and Iran's blatant admittance of such a pursuit.) Once again you try to put the bias against Israel, despite the fact that Iran's president (Ahmadinejad, NOT Khatami - get your facts straight) is the one spouting the hate about wiping Israel off the map.

You also talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say
1. Any nation that wants nukes should be allowed to have them
2. Iran can't(?) be trusted to use nukes only for peaceful reasons

Make up your mind. Or do you advocate allowing nukes in the hands of people that we can't trust? That would be sheer stupidity. Some Canadian education system.

Finally, Israel may attack first, but what would you expect any nation to do if their neighbor was threatening them with nuclear weapons? Wait for the blow? More Canadian education, I presume.

Your statement about Saudi Arabians being the key assassins on 9/11 is so old I'm not even going to bother refuting it AGAIN. It's been done before. Do a search and be enlightened.

 

[MonsterMark]

WTH are you talking about! Iran is not trying to build nukes. This is just another one of Shrubbies lies to take over another nation's oil and give no-bid rebuilding contracts to Halliburton and his buddies.

 

[RRocket]

You also talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say
1. Any nation that wants nukes should be allowed to have them
2. Iran can't(?) be trusted to use nukes only for peaceful reasons

I said that any nation should be allowed to build a nuclear power plant for power generation. Having a nuclear power plant and "nukes" are entirely different entities. For example, Canada generates nuclear power, but has no nuclear weapons that we know of..unless we have them buried in the desert!

There is no bias against Israel. I stated facts. Iran hates Israel. Israel hates Iran. These guys just won't get along, and aren't likely to soon. If this is bias in your eyes, no worries..I'll get over it.

Ultimately, you and I pretty much agree on this topic. It will be interesting to see how this is handled because the fallout from any action ( or inaction) could be severe. It's "wait and see"....

 

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Iran Is a Grave Threat to the World

Armstrong Williams
Friday, Jan. 20, 2006

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons of mass destruction and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. – President George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2002

Iran has resumed its uranium enrichment activities. The free world suspects that they're working on nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently said Israel should be "wiped off the map," insists that his country wants nuclear technology for peaceful energy-producing purposes. Ahmadinejad insists that Iran needs nuclear energy to support the country's booming need for electricity, and accused the United States of acting like the "lord of the world" in denying his country this alternative source of energy.

Let me ask you something. Why does one of the most oil-rich countries in the world need an alternative source of energy? The answer is clear. They are intent on building the bomb. The technology they're seeking, uranium enrichment, doesn't have any other purpose than to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's nuclear ambitions have not been lost on the CIA, which has issued a report describing Iran as "one of the most active countries seeking to acquire [weapons of mass destruction]. ... Tehran is attempting to develop a domestic capability to produce various types of weapons – chemical, biological and nuclear – and their delivery systems."

This should frighten everyone. Iran is the leading sponsor of terror in the world, and the chief benefactor of the terrorist group Hizballah. Hizballah has become the main sponsor of terrorism in the Palestinian territories. According to Israeli intelligence, Hizballah backs at least 51 terrorist cells in the territories – 36 in the West Bank and 15 in Gaza.

Last year, Hizballah transferred around $9 million to the West Bank and Gaza for the purpose of encouraging and organizing terrorist attacks, procuring military equipment and paying terrorists and families of suicide bombers. If Iran shares nuclear technology with Hizballah, they would not hesitate to use these weapons on Israel and the West.

This is the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation facing the world right now. In a Dec. 3, 2001 article in The New Yorker, Seymour M. Hersh reported that in 1995, Iran and Russia "signed an eight-hundred-million-dollar contract under which the Russians would help install a powerful reactor [at Bushehr], to be run by a Russian-Iranian team."

Hersh added that "Iran's most important nuclear production facilities are not at Bushehr ... but scattered throughout the country, at clandestine sites, under military control. The clandestine facilities have not been 'declared' – that is, they are not subject to I.A.E.A. inspection."

Hersh also reported that "Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, who directed the Pakistani nuclear program from the nineteen-seventies until his retirement ... made at least one secret visit to an Iranian nuclear facility. American officials believe that he brought no actual materials with him to Iran – just his years of hands-on experience in bomb-making."

Iran has stepped up its attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In all likelihood, they are pressing the issue now because of waning support for the war in Iraq. But this threat cannot be ignored. Iran actively supports global terrorism. If they funnel nuclear weapons to terrorists, they will be used on us.

I understand that everyone is weary over America's embattled presence in Iraq. But this is one of those critical moments where a nation must act to prevent grave harm to itself, and to the free world. The clear link between terror and weapons of mass destruction justifies action. Iran must be made aware that the international community will not tolerate its weapons program. Unless Iran expresses a genuine willingness to end its nuclear program, we must consider the use of military force to end this danger.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

fossten, "there you go again" (to borrow a phrase from a famous great president), twisting others' posts around to fit your twisted perspective of what they think / believe. You really do need to bone-up on your reading comprehension skills.

If it is presented clearly that it will be imminent that Iran will possess nuclear weapons, are you in favor of them possessing them or do you believe they are a dangerous nation?

1) NO, I am not in favor of Iran possessing nuclear weapons.
2) YES, I believe Iran is a dangerous nation.

RRocket pretty much answered your questions......... several times........ and I agree w/ his position.

I will add something I've contended 1-1/2 years ago when I first started posting here at LvC, and that is we would probably not be in the position we are in w/ Iran now had the BuSh administration paid more attention to the situation in Iran rather than pursuing the distraction in Iraq. Penny wise but pound foolish.