Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 277
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #161  
    Hobbes, from the beginning, you've treated your own question from the OP with an imbalanced, slanted response ... Or, did I miss the fine print where treating each position you propose with equal regard was the responsibility of everyone but you?

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Are they really a threat, are they a master Manipulator or other nations and the UN system, or simply seeking Peaceful power for electricity?
  2.    #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Instead of offering attacks (including your response to this), could you offer a post of sharing what options you feel we should take now and the reasoning (or maybe even sourcing) behind it? If you do so, you may even find that I will agree with some of your proposed solutions and with your reasoning of why they may work.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Hobbes, from the beginning, you've treated your own question from the OP with an imbalanced, slanted response ... Or, did I miss the fine print where treating each position you propose with equal regard was the responsibility of everyone but you?
    I laid out my opinion I have shared throughout this whole thread and in the other Iran thread. Sharing and discussing opinions, observations, personal experience, and insights is what these threads are about. I have been consistent that I view Iran as a problem. There is a potential of a real threat. Iran needs to allow their actions to be confirmed to be of a peaceful nature or the West (EU, US, UN, etc..) and other neighboring countries in the region needs take measures to confirm it is of a peaceful or malicious nature, hopefully through diplomatic and/or UN sanctions channels. I have supported nearly all efforts to help resolve this issue so far by the US, EU, and the UN. Iran has refused and blocked every single effort so far from all sources. There are several angles that war could be ignited over this issue with little provocation. There are several avenues still available to resolve this peacefully, IF Iran will allow it.

    I have never claimed to have all the answers. I would love to see some new options that might work that no one has thought of yet. So, I asked BB, who has been critical and attacked in 100% of all his posts on this thread so far without offering any alternative options or reasoning behind them, to state his view of options we can take with all the efforts already made and failed so far with his reasoning of why these would be good steps to take. I even stated I that I might even agree with his proposed options and/or his reasoning behind it if he would commit to stating his own opinion. Instead I get another attack about share my opinion and/or personal observations that I have shared and have been consistent with the whole time.

    .........I tried.
    (please no more heckling, personal attacks posts on this thread. Thanks.)
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/26/2007 at 09:48 PM.
  3.    #163  
    Iran Claims to Uncover Spy Networks Organized By U.S., Western Allies

    TEHRAN, Iran Iran said Saturday it has uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies, claiming on state-run television that the espionage networks were made up of "infiltrating elements from the Iraqi occupiers.".......

    .......The broadcast did not elaborate on how the alleged networks were uncovered, but said further details would be published within days.


    ------------------

    The allegations Saturday come just two days before ambassadors of the US and Iran are to sit down in Baghdad to discuss ways to ease the Iraq crisis. It remains unclear how the announcement will impact those talks, although it reflects a toughening of Iran's stand.

    -------------------

    Although the US has denied such reports, it has launched several Iran-related initiatives, including establishing offices for Iranian affairs in Azerbaijan and the United Arab Emirates, and committing US$75 million to promoting democracy in Iran.

    Full story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...fnc.world/iran
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    .........I tried.
    You failed ... by your own hand.

    please no more heckling, personal attacks posts on this thread. Thanks.
    Your Nixonian nondenial-denial of knowing 'all the facts' is laughably an insult to one's intelligence. An insult to one's intelligence is an insult regardless. Either deliver the premise that you originally supplied of equal-handedness or not. Your choice. However, as with all adult choices, they have consequences. Don't whine at this weighty responsibility.

    By all reasonable accounts, Iran is a manageable, monitored issue. Fear and [self?]loathing, the basis for this thread, is crystal clear to those with eyes to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Are they really a threat, are they a master Manipulator or other nations and the UN system, or simply seeking Peaceful power for electricity?
    You've also yet to be the victim of a personal attack. Don't start your bullshyte on that again.
  5.    #165  
    It appears that more govs are gathering intel of Iran's support for terrorist groups.

    U.S. envoy: Iran sending weapons to Taliban


    PARIS (AP) — A senior U.S. diplomat accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan — the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and "Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan."

    ----------------

    Iran's possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has long been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments charged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.

    -------------------

    Many have sought new sanctions after the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent report that Iran's enrichment program was expanding — and its warning for the first time that its knowledge of Tehran's nuclear activities was shrinking.

    The prospect of council action appeared more likely after a senior Iranian envoy abruptly canceled talks Monday with the head of the IAEA.
  6.    #166  
    There have been interesting points in recent weeks with Iran....

    First is that France's new gov is starting to take a hard line against Iran...to the point of actually talking about the possibility of war:

    France must be ready for Iran war - minister


    The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said yesterday his country had to prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear programme, but added that he did not believe any such action was imminent.

    Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Mr Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's main powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting nuclear weapons, and said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic

    FULL STORY

    Second is today's report of Iran's long range missiles projected to be able to strike US soil within 8 years.

    Iran Could Strike U.S. by 2015, U.S. Officials Say

    WASHINGTON — Iranian technology is on pace to build a long-range missile that could strike the United States within a decade....

    -------------------

    "Most of the intelligence experts predict that sometime before 2015, or in that time frame, the Iranians will have developed the capabilities to threaten the United States, from a missile technology perspective, "Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, chief of the U.S. missile defense program, said Tuesday in a Pentagon interview with FOX News. Of concern Obering said is Iran's ability to take shorter range technology and improving it to longer and longer ranges.

    FULL STORY
  7. #167  
    I can't believe there are still people out there that actually think we ARE NOT going to be involved in a war with Iran within the near future. Just thinking about its implications scares the hell out of me, but the consequences of inaction could be even worse. As much as I believe in the power of our military, I don't believe that we will have a president that will be willing to "take on" the media once civilians start getting killed (which is why Iraq is taking so long).

    We should just pay Blackwater to go into Iran for us, since they seam to be much more efficient in getting the job done. For as much crap as they have been taking in the media for the recent shootings, they at least instill fear in the enemy. I say let'em do there thing-thing.
  8.    #168  
    Here is one that came out yesterday:

    France: Iran to run nearly 3,000 uranium centrifuges soon


    PARIS (AP) Iran is set to run almost 3,000 centrifuges by the end of the month, nearing the threshold for industrial-scale uranium enrichment in its contested nuclear program, French diplomatic officials said Wednesday.
    The revelation, based on a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency received in Paris on Wednesday, comes as France steps up its campaign for new European Union sanctions against Tehran.

    The telegram from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, indicated that the agency believes Iran will have 18 cascades running by the end of October or the equivalent of just under 3,000 centrifuges, French officials said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

    France, the United States and other Western nations fear that Tehran's nuclear program masks designs to build bombs. Iran says its intentions are peaceful, aimed at producing electricity.

    Tehran has already declared a goal of operating 3,000 centrifuges, which Western diplomats say would be enough to produce a nuclear bomb per year.

    Iranian leaders have said their country will never give up plans to assemble an industrial-scale program, possibly including more than 50,000 centrifuges. That scale would be enough to produce the fissile core of dozens of weapons a year if Iran goes that route.
    Tehran insists its enrichment program is geared purely toward producing power, but international mistrust triggered by nearly two decades of secret nuclear activities including experiments that could be linked to a weapons program have prompted the U.N. Security Council to impose two sets of sanctions over the country's refusal to scrap the program.

    FULL STORY
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Not to be crude, but makes you kinda glad that we already "shot our wad" already in Iraq, doesn't it?
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    We should just pay Blackwater to go into Iran for us, since they seam to be much more efficient in getting the job done. For as much crap as they have been taking in the media for the recent shootings, they at least instill fear in the enemy. I say let'em do there thing-thing.
    Or here's a neat idea...instead of playing cowboy again maybe we can allow the international community to get on board with this whole thing so that someone other than us and our tax payer dollars aren't funding the entire "world police" fund for a change? Or at least let the international community signficantly subsidize whatever actions we'll need to take in Iran.
  11.    #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Not to be crude, but makes you kinda glad that we already "shot our wad" already in Iraq, doesn't it?
    The problem is that we did not even have confirmation that Iran had been lying to us for the last 20 years until after 4 months after Saddam fell.
  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    The problem is that we did not even have confirmation that Iran had been lying to us for the last 20 years until after 4 months after Saddam fell.
    C'mon Hobbes...you're not implying we wouldn't know if Saddam were still in power, are you?
  13. #173  
    BTW Hobbes - nice to see you posting again.
  14.    #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Or here's a neat idea...instead of playing cowboy again maybe we can allow the international community to get on board with this whole thing so that someone other than us and our tax payer dollars aren't funding the entire "world police" fund for a change? Or at least let the international community signficantly subsidize whatever actions we'll need to take in Iran.
    Actually the good news is that this is exactly what is currently happening. See this post for all the steps that other nations have been trying to take to resolve this in post #160. Lately other countries besides the US have been calling for actions to be taken to avoid dealing with an Iran nuclear state later.
  15.    #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    C'mon Hobbes...you're not implying we wouldn't know if Saddam were still in power, are you?
    No not at all. Saddam had nothing to do with it. It is just how the timelines matched up. Here is what I mean:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    It is easy to say that now. But what is often challenging to do is to look at the what we knew at the time the decisions were being made........and not with the knowledge we have now. IMHO, This is where a lot of your argument falls apart.

    I shared with you in one of the first posts the choices of those who we could have gone after at that time, and some thoughts on each.

    You have to look at what we knew at the time. Due to Saddams reluctance to confirm his claims that he no longer had the vast amounts of WMD material that Clinton says was still unaccounted for when he left office,
    Congress had already voted for going after Iraq on Friday, October 11, 2002 ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65395,00.html ).
    Nov 8th 2002 the UN Security Council Approves Iraq Resolution ( http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/cssn.../11/00035.html ).
    March 20th, 2003 US attacks Iraq ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.main/ ).

    We did not even have confirmation about Iran's Nuke program until Dec. 2002 With the help of satellite photos of Natanz and Arak ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8472950/ ). So we did not even know for sure about their Nuke program until 2 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and 1 month after the UN approves Resolution 1441.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team headed by chief Mohamed ElBaradei doesn't even inspect Natanz and Arak until Feb. 2003........5 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution.

    And it is not even until June 2003 that they file their report and July 2003 that Diplomats tell Reuters the IAEA has found traces of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at Natanz....... 8 & 9 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and a 2 & 3 monts AFTER the US Attacks Iraq.

    No matter what your personal political opinions are, you cannot muddle facts we know true today as if they were well known then when decisions had to be made.

    I would have supported going after Iran at the time as well, even though we didn't know about their nuke program at the time. But I have little doubt that we would be in the same boat as we are now in Iraq, but in a worse situation. Iran can only support the insurgence under the table with a low profile. Imagine what it would be like if they were free and open to oppose us in this situation? No matter if it was Iran or Iraq, both have to be dealt with. And since even after we had finish dealing with Iran, I doubt that we would still know for sure or not about Saddam's status with his WMDs that there is no doubt that he DID have. It also would have flipped the coin and offered many HUGE benefits for Iraq, just as Iraq's situation has offered benefits to Iran. In both cases, AQ would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases Syria, would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases, we would be fighting an uphill battle against resistant terrorist fearful of a Dem gov who are going to oppose us every minute that we fight to establish democracy in the mist of them.
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=50
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    But I do agree with you that we would be hard pressed, though unwisely possible, to initiate military options against Iran while we are still tied to cleaning up the situation in Iraq. I personally feel that Iraq needed to be addressed, my big question is the timing concerning other threats at the time and now. I assume that you would agree that all cannot be taken care of at once. Then it comes down to what to do first.

    IRAN: As I mentioned in the first post, I personally think that the US has always been all too aware of the threat of Iran, which has lead to many of our decisions in dealing with both Iraq and Iran. I personally think that is one (among a mountain of others) consideration why during the first Gulf war, we did not go all the way to take out Bagdad, is that Iraq offers a political buffer between the US and Iran and helps to stop a full head on toe to toe situation.

    To tell you the truth Iran possibly scares me more than any other immediate threat for a couple reasons. NK obviously can hurl nukes our way, but I feel is unable to wage any other long term war because of their economy being so bad, food so scarce, and energy resources always low. But Iran I feel has the economy, political momentum, and the man power to wage a VERY serious war against the US. This would make the Iraq war look like game a Risk compared to it, if it came to feet on the ground.

    NKorea: The big difference between Iraq and NK is that NK already has up to 8 unconfirmed nukes with an unconfirmed delivery capability to launch a strike against the entire West Coast of the US with a push of a button. Iraq was claiming (or at least not allowing confirmation that they were not) to be really close to nuke capability and we still had a chance to act before they got it.

    Syria: I think this could have been a possibility, not because of their political, or economical, or military factors, but for making their county a safe haven for terrorist. I think it would have been a similar situation as in Iraq. A quick fall of the gov and a long haul effort to reform the gov while dealing with all the terrorist in the country and those who would come in to join the fight. It may be a target soon because of their continual support of terrorist while thumbing their nose at the rest of us.

    Pakistan: This again falls into a NK category as they also have nukes and have proved with 5 tests in 1998. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ . Again a country that already has nukes is a whole different situation than one on verge of getting them, like Iran and Iraq.

    Lybia: After seeing that the US meant business with those playing games with WMDs, already gave theirs up and welcomed us in to make sure there they had it all. This is an example of what can happen when we stand up to threats and follow through on what we say we are going to do.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...34&postcount=3
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/04/2007 at 09:48 PM.
  16.    #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    BTW Hobbes - nice to see you posting again.
    Thanks! I have been posting a lot but just haven't had much time to spend in OT for a while.
  17. #177  
    There's plenty of "wad" left for Iran.

    However, it would be an int'l coalition. In other words, it won't happen.

    Iran will continue to pursue nuke.

    We and the rest of the world will do nothing.

    Finally, either Israel will do either airstrikes (premptive), or respond to a dirty bomb being set off in Israel.

    Either way, we get sucked in, and Iran becomes a glass parking lot.

    Too bad it has to end up that way, but look at the leader. He's nucking futs.

    "We don't have gays in Iran"
    LOL.
  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    C'mon Hobbes...you're not implying we wouldn't know if Saddam were still in power, are you?
    If we hadn't yanked the government and people of Iran around over oil profits and instituted our own puppet government for decades, the present tension may not have existed. Now that it does, the US still is not treating it with a wise, longterm vision. If we cannot effectively use direct diplomacy when it matters most, then our only utility is when we want something from friendly nations? That's weak world leadership.
  19. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #179  
    Modboy has apparently forgotten that the events leading up to the Iraq War did not take place in a vacuum nor were they a figment of Washington's imagination.

    It was not so much us playing cowboy, but more like the world (as in the UNSC) balked when push came to shove.

    Of course, France, German, and Russia's little dealings in Iraq up to the war has made its way out into the public domain since the invasion...which explained quite a bit.
  20.    #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Now that it does, the US still is not treating it with a wise, longterm vision. If we cannot effectively use direct diplomacy when it matters most, then our only utility is when we want something from friendly nations? That's weak world leadership.
    I don't quite follow, unless you are lumping a large part of the weak world leadership in Iran's lap.

    There have been tremendous diplomatic efforts taken by England, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, US, and the UN. It takes two sides to tango....urr...negotiate. Iran has rejected all efforts without fail stating they will not give anything in any negotiations and continually kicks out any team to confirm their peaceful nuke program whenever they start to ask too many questions or want to look at anything significant.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 10/04/2007 at 09:34 PM.

Posting Permissions