Any clues yet as to what the US is going to do over the Iran nuclear situation? Does anyone in the US know there's a problem there?

maybe the usual subtle approach perhaps?:rolleyes:
they're a fiesty lot the Iranians, it'll make Iraq look like a sunday stroll if the US invades in its discreet way.

Col

I was rather concerned last night to see talk of getting Israel to go and bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran, as they did in Iraq. Colin Powell was talking to Paxman, and of course completely refused to admit he was wrong on WOMD. Of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (and Germany), the UK, France and Germany wanted to bring sanctions, the US was open to any options (including military action), China wanted to do nothing (they are heavily dependent on oil from Iran) and Russia I *think* Russia wanted to supplu Iran with the refined (?) material they needed for their reactors.

However, as we all know there is far too much money to be made from war, so that will probably end up being the action *someone* takes... hopefully we will not get dragged in this time. I think we (the UK public) made our feelings perfectly clear last time...

I find the attitude of the "nuclear club" very hypocritical, its ok for them to go nuclear but nobody else, except Isreal of course, and anybody too big for them to take on e.g. China.

I think that Russia's response is the mature one , provided that the material is at a price that can't be refused except for political/strategic reasons

Brian

I find the attitude of the "nuclear club" very hypocritical, its ok for them to go nuclear but nobody else, except Isreal of course, and anybody too big for them to take on e.g. China.


Its a "don't do as I do, do as I say" scenario.

It seems that the current nuclear club don't trust the Iranians, these shady Middle Eastern types could suddenly drop a nuclear bomb anytime.

Not that any of the current nuclear bomb holders would do that - much to responsible.:rolleyes:

Col

I find the attitude of the "nuclear club" very hypocritical, its ok for them to go nuclear but nobody else, except Isreal of course, and anybody too big for them to take on e.g. China.

I think that's an over simplification of the issue. Its not about Iran "going nuclear". Nuclear power is one thing, nuclear weapons are another. The issue AFAIK, is that Iran has been repeatedly asked to be open about their nuclear facilities, and have refused. The UN Security Council's position is that they are moving towards nuclear weapon development, rather than nuclear power. Combine this with the leader of Iran calling for Israel "to be wiped off the face of the earth", and you've got a very volatile situation.

I think that Russia's response is the mature one , provided that the material is at a price that can't be refused except for political/strategic reasons

It does seem to be a positive way forward, however, the recent issue with Russia supplying gas to its neighbours indicates there might be trouble with this agreement as well. Russia is still a "super power", only now in natural resources rather than military might. How they will use this power is very uncertain yet.

Iran with nukes>? Could you imagine the London Tube bombings with Iranian supplied nukes?

Considering that only one American has chimed in so far, I thought I'd drop in:

Does anyone in the US know there's a problem there?
Yes.

Any clues yet as to what the US is going to do over the Iran nuclear situation?
No strong indicators yet. My best guess is: they have a pretty good picture of what's going on in Iran and what the potential danger is. They also are well-aware that our military will never be able to handle another major campaign (especially against Iran) until one of the current ones (likely Iraq) is resolved. However, considering the 'mandated by God', shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy toward the rogue nations, going the diplomatic route would be an unmistakable sign of weakness at this point. I figure that we'll pretty much pretend there's no problem in Iran as long as possible or until our troops are out of Iraq. That way we're not committed to a fight we cannot win nor are we backing down. We just didn't notice.

Iran with nukes>? Could you imagine the London Tube bombings with Iranian supplied nukes?

Are small scale nuclear devices feasible?

If so... I'm glad I live out in the sticks...:eek:

No strong indicators yet. My best guess is: they have a pretty good picture of what's going on in Iran and what the potential danger is. They also are well-aware that our military will never be able to handle another major campaign (especially against Iran) until one of the current ones (likely Iraq) is resolved. However, considering the 'mandated by God', shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy toward the rogue nations, going the diplomatic route would be an unmistakable sign of weakness at this point. I figure that we'll pretty much pretend there's no problem in Iran as long as possible or until our troops are out of Iraq. That way we're not committed to a fight we cannot win nor are we backing down. We just didn't notice.

Pretty good guess there Kraj under the current administration. How long is it till the next elections though? Is Bush going to win another term?

Is Bush going to win another term?
fortunately for us, he's not allowed too :cool:

Iran with nukes>? Could you imagine the London Tube bombings with Iranian supplied nukes?
Are you suggesting Iran supplied the materials for the July bombings? :confused:

Considering that only one American has chimed in so far, I thought I'd drop in:


Yes.


No strong indicators yet. My best guess is: they have a pretty good picture of what's going on in Iran and what the potential danger is. They also are well-aware that our military will never be able to handle another major campaign (especially against Iran) until one of the current ones (likely Iraq) is resolved. However, considering the 'mandated by God', shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy toward the rogue nations, going the diplomatic route would be an unmistakable sign of weakness at this point. I figure that we'll pretty much pretend there's no problem in Iran as long as possible or until our troops are out of Iraq. That way we're not committed to a fight we cannot win nor are we backing down. We just didn't notice.

Maybe,


But I’m guessing before this is over American made jets are going to change the uranium enriching capabilities of the Iranians.

Not necessarily American pilots though.

But I’m guessing before this is over American made jets are going to change the uranium enriching capabilities of the Iranians.



I doubt it, they'll probably use the superior Mig

How long is it till the next elections though?
November 2007, unless I'm mistaken, so two more years of Duh-bya.

fortunately for us, he's not allowed too
Amen to that. Anyone want to take bets on whether he proposes to repeal that Ammendment this year?

God help us if Jeb Bush runs....

Are you suggesting Iran supplied the materials for the July bombings?
I didn't get that impression. I think he was referring to the fact that Iran is known to be supplying terrorists in general, so if they have nuclear weapons it's more likely terrorists can get ahold of them.

But I’m guessing before this is over American made jets are going to change the uranium enriching capabilities of the Iranians.

Not necessarily American pilots though.
Quite possibly. But if we do so we had better be prepared if they do something that escalates the conflict.

I think he was referring to the fact that Iran is known to be supplying terrorists in general,

is that from the same reliable source that said Iraq had wmd ?

is that from the same reliable source that said Iraq had wmd ?

Do you think that we should just give in to them like there some kind of spoiled child.

The broke the seal on an enrichment program.

you want to play with the big boys...

is that from the same reliable source that said Iraq had wmd ?
How about the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

Go a ways down and it mentions Iran's support for Hezbollah. You want more?

Go a ways down and it mentions Iran's support for Hezbollah. You want more?
Yes, the article mentioned refers to events of the 1980's

Do you think that we should just give in to them like there some kind of spoiled child.

The broke the seal on an enrichment program.

you want to play with the big boys...

And George Bush is breaking international law, who's in a position to lecture who? :rolleyes:

Do you think that we should just give in to them like there some kind of spoiled child.

The broke the seal on an enrichment program.

you want to play with the big boys...

Make sure you get it right if you send in the planes, unlike last Fridays US attack in Pakistan.:rolleyes: Yet another US cock-up killing more innocent people.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz says his country cannot accept a repetition of a US air strike on a village that killed at least 18 people.
His government also insist it did not share intelligence with the US before Friday's attack

Col

November 2007, unless I'm mistaken, so two more years of Duh-bya.


Amen to that. Anyone want to take bets on whether he proposes to repeal that Ammendment this year?

God help us if Jeb Bush runs....


I wasn't aware of this. Seems slightly odd to me. So even if you have a great leader that everyone like (I'm not Rich baiting there, honestly!), you still can't re-elect them?

Make sure you get it right if you send in the planes, unlike last Fridays US attack in Pakistan.:rolleyes: Yet another US cock-up killing more innocent people.



Col
I’m sorry about the innocent people dying. I can’t add anything now though I haven’t been listening to news for a couple of weeks.

Too busy trying to get stuff done in my business.

I wasn't aware of this. Seems slightly odd to me. So even if you have a great leader that everyone like (I'm not Rich baiting there, honestly!), you still can't re-elect them?
I used to think the limit far too restrictive, however with the current incumbent I now think it's far too generous :cool:

Are you suggesting Iran supplied the materials for the July bombings? :confused:
No, I have no clue, I am just saying could you image what would happen if they had access to create something like a dirty bomb (maybe not a full blown nuke) instead.

Yes, the article mentioned refers to events of the 1980's
I should have expected you wouldn't read past the first paragraph :rolleyes:

I wasn't aware of this. Seems slightly odd to me. So even if you have a great leader that everyone like (I'm not Rich baiting there, honestly!), you still can't re-elect them?
Not without changing the Constitution, no. In a way it is odd, yes, but it also prevents one person from holding the most power for an extended period of time. There are good reasons for this, and there are good reasons for allowing a good leader to stay in power. The reason we chose to do it this way is largely due to George Washington.

When the current Constitution was created, the office of the Presidency was basically custom-made for George Washington. He was the one who set the bar for the rest to follow. When Washington's second term was finished he declined to run for a third. No President ever ran (or ran and won, I'm not positive) for more than two terms until FDR, who arguably only won his third and fourth terms because of WWII. Afterwards, Congress decided to make the two-term precedent into law.

No, I have no clue, I am just saying could you image what would happen if they had access to create something like a dirty bomb (maybe not a full blown nuke) instead.

Bound to happen at some point I guess. I would hope that it wouldn't be easy though. The media did its best a while ago to scare everyone with stories of biological weapons, but there hasn't been a major attack. Personally, if I was a terrorist, I would think the easiest way to wreak havoc against the infidel would be through cyber-terrorism. I guess that just doesn't satisfy their bloodlust...

I should have expected you wouldn't read past the first paragraph :rolleyes:



Perhaps you should, you can then quote the passage that specifically states Iran is supporting terrorists groups today

Why is it that innocent old Iran, holder of some of the largest energy reserves in the world needs nuclear power?

Why is it that innocent old Iran, holder of some of the largest energy reserves in the world needs nuclear power?
same reason the USA does

When the current Constitution was created, the office of the Presidency was basically custom-made for George Washington. He was the one who set the bar for the rest to follow. When Washington's second term was finished he declined to run for a third. No President ever ran (or ran and won, I'm not positive) for more than two terms until FDR, who arguably only won his third and fourth terms because of WWII. Afterwards, Congress decided to make the two-term precedent into law.

Kraj, once again I bow down before you scholarship :-)

I must now remember to look up George Washington when I get home...

Perhaps you should, you can then quote the passage that specifically states Iran is supporting terrorists groups today
It doesn't. What it does say is that Iran has supported Hezbollah from the very beggining and increased their support over (an unspecified period of) time. At no point does the article indicate any reduction or change in Iran's support. Also, a photo caption states, "Hezbollah's spiritual head Sheikh Fadlallah is close to Iran". That's a pretty strong implication that Iran and Hezbollah are still in bed together.

So there are two possibilities here: A.) I'm right and you are wrong or B.) you're right, I'm wrong, and the writers at your precious BBC are crap.

and the writers at your precious BBC are crap.

Some of the technology writers are embarrassingly clueless.

It doesn't. What it does say is that Iran has supported Hezbollah from the very beggining and increased their support over (an unspecified period of) time. At no point does the article indicate any reduction or change in Iran's support. Also, a photo caption states, "Hezbollah's spiritual head Sheikh Fadlallah is close to Iran". That's a pretty strong implication that Iran and Hezbollah are still in bed together.

So there are two possibilities here: A.) I'm right and you are wrong or B.) you're right, I'm wrong, and the writers at your precious BBC are crap.

No, it says For some time Iran supported Hezbolah, but then the US supported terrorists groups when the mood suited too, what's the point you're trying to make?

Kraj, once again I bow down before you scholarship :-)
Thanks, but don't be too impressed. I knew the pieces of what I posted but I had to look up what the exact motivation behind the Amendment was.

same reason the USA does


You guys were more than happy for us to maintain our huge arsenal to balance the Soviet threat.

You guys were more than happy for us to maintain our huge arsenal to balance the Soviet threat.

No we weren't, you're reading the wrong press yet again.
:rolleyes:

You guys were more than happy for us to maintain our huge arsenal to balance the Soviet threat.
Wrong:rolleyes: thats why loads of UK people had running battles with the police outside the US bases in the UK where you stored your nuclear weapons - the UK didn't want to be piggy-in-the-middle to some stupid mood the USA had with the USSR. Our police were protecting your bases from being attacked by the British.
Also, thats why UK people burned the USA flag outside US military bases and attacked US vehicles going into said bases.

Col

Wrong:rolleyes: thats why loads of UK people had running battles with the police outside the US bases in the UK where you stored your nuclear weapons - the UK didn't want to be piggy-in-the-middle to some stupid mood the USA had with the USSR. Our police were protecting your bases from being attacked by the British.
Also, thats why UK people burned the USA flag outside US military bases and attacked US vehicles going into said bases.

Col
So, would you say that in that situation, the policy of the UK government did not reflect the will of the UK's citizens?

It did not reflect the will of all of the UK's citizens but what the percentages were nobody knows, which applies to everyting a government does.

Brian

So, would you say that in that situation, the policy of the UK government did not reflect the will of the UK's citizens?

LOL I think you could say that for pretty much any situation...

So, would you say that in that situation, the policy of the UK government did not reflect the will of the UK's citizens?
Not many of our governments policies have anything to do with what the people want, our government is (partly) elected on what it has in its manifesto, then when they come to power, that all goes out the window and they do what they like. (like appointing sex offenders as teachers)
The US thing I mentioned was that people living only a couple of miles away didn't fancy having a series of nuclear rockets not far away. In the US you have them out in a desert somewhere - we haven't got that much open space here. Neither did we want to be blown to pieces because the USA had its nuclear stuff here.

Col

Back to the subject.

The situation in Iran will get to the crises mode before this is over. No question about it, people are going to die over this issue.

So the question is. How do you stop nuclear weapons proliferation without large scale blood shed while still promoting the spread of nuclear fuel technology?

One has to really wonder what Iran plans to gain by taking this path. Most of the technical people involved maintain that the step in the enrichment process the Iranians are initiating is both costly and nonessential for the production of fuel grade uranium.

So that really begs the question. Why all the bravado?

If they continue down this path they will end up alienating most of the western world. Maybe that’s their goal. Maybe this is some attempt to reinforce the strangle hold Islam has on their county.

Who knows, but we better find out soon or Israel will take it upon themselves to deal with this.

Ensuring continued instability in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

Ensuring continued instability in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

The invasion of Iraq has already done that :rolleyes:

So the question is. How do you stop nuclear weapons proliferation without large scale blood shed while still promoting the spread of nuclear fuel technology?



I don't see what the fuss is about, there's only about 50yrs uranium left anyway

well, iran and US are both fundamentalist nations reigned by religious insanity so if US wants to strike couldn't they better strike themselves?

if US wants to strike couldn't they better strike themselves?
that's not within their constitution anymore :rolleyes:

Lightly undertaking a war against a major opponent....while embroiled, then totally bogged down in an unwinnable war that was supposed to have been won quickly and easily, because one's technological superiority was not decisive, despite having casually provoked the conflict......Now the overriding need to secure the natural resources necessary to keep one's military-industrial complex going is becoming extremely pressing. You now find your major opponent in the region is menacing you and your attempt to secure those resources, so you strike, and strike HARD, at your opponent's iconic weapons of war which stand in the way of your securing those resources your country so badly needs - and deserves.






Welcome to the world of Imperial Japan, 1941, and the rationale behind the attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor - to clear the way for the invasion of SE Asia. Despite being embroiled in an unwinnable war in China.....
Worked out well for Tojo-san and his samurai, didn't it?