Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

donsutherland1 said:

Concrete steps, not rhetoric, will determine whether or not President Obama did all he could. If, for example, Iran attains such weapons and the U.S. had not even made an effort to seek truly crippling sanctions, then I won't be able to conclude that he did everything he could to prevent the outcome. Of course, there are other measures, too, but that's just one example.

Click to expand...

I condemn Obama just like I condemn Bush for not acting, as both should have already acted, since Iran has been building up its defenses and hardening its bunkers for years. They are both incredibly incompetent as for as I’m concerned.

IMO, the U.S. will need to play a leading role in any verification regime. Leaving the effort to the UN will not be effective. Lebanon's evolution following UNSC Res. 1701 offers one example. The stakes are too high to leave verification to the UN.

Click to expand...

The US needs to get the hell out of the UN altogether.

My guess is that Israel's risk assessment is not materially different from my own thinking: a near-term decision (probably within a year or less) will likely be needed, but an imminent one (matter of days) is not. After the passage of this weekend, I believe it will be clear that Israel did not share Mr. Bolton's dire assessment.

Click to expand...

I don’t know, Netanyahu has been far more dovish than most people assumed. Israel may fear BHO’s wrath.

Moreover, if Israel needs to, it can and will strike the Bushehr plant in the future if the plant is viewed as contributing to an existential threat. It won't let artificial timelines and theoretical pontificating about the plant's being immune from attack get in the way of trying to assure its own survival.

Click to expand...

If Israel attacks Bushehr after it starts up, there will be massive fallout not only in Iran, but also in the Persian Gulf and likely in some of the Gulf states as well. Not to mention that in the interim Iran is likely to get a stockpile of plutonium.

I'm not aware of anyone in the Defense Department who testified before the Congress that the U.S. should respond in Afghanistan with air or missile strikes, albeit on a much larger scale than President Clinton's retaliation.

Click to expand...

That’s because no one ever proposed such nonsense.

I am well aware from testimony before the Congress and Senate that the Defense Department all but dismissed risks of insurgency in Iraq (had they reviewed that country's history--Sunni-Shia rivalry/tensions/animosities--and experience when power collapses in authoritarian states, the only conclusion was that the country faced an extremely high risk of insurgency).

Click to expand...

Actually, the Defense Department was planning to be out of Iraq before any insurgency could develop and emerge. Hence, at the time of that testimony, it was the correct assessment. However, all of that changed as soon as Bush decided to side with the State Department over the Defense Department instead.

With respect to Afghanistan, the idea was that once the Taliban was swept from power the country could rapidly be transformed into a democracy (had they bothered to study the experiences of Imperial Russia, Britain, and the Soviet Union and also recognized that Afghanistan's history, culture, and structure made the rapid evolution of a liberal democracy remote at best and stable central government very unlikely in the near-term, the overly idealistic course that was adopted could have been avoided). In the end, democracy is not achieved and sustained via regime change. It depends on institutions, traditions, societal structure, etc.

Click to expand...

Again, that was not the Defense Department’s fault, but the State Department’s fault. If it had been left up to the Defense Department only, OBL and AQ would have been targeted and eradicated and we would have left the country as soon as that was achieved, instead of being still stuck in that quagmire today propping up a Sharia state that will inevitably rejoin the global jihad against the West as soon as we leave.

And when it came to ground invasions, General Tommy Franks advanced a "go light strategy" under the radical--and ultimately, disproved hypothesis--that modern technology made large manpower commitments unnecessary. In doing so, he disregarded General Anthony Zinni's "Desert Crossing" simulation on Iraq which demonstrated the need for substantial manpower in Iraq and considered an insurgency one of the most likely scenarios. General Eric Shinseki's warning about the need for substantial manpower was swiftly dismissed and all but ridiculed.

Click to expand...

Again, the Defense Department wasn’t planning on occupying the country to attempt to make Iraq a beacon in the Islamic world. That strategy was thrust upon them after the initial invasion thanks again to the State Department and a very incompetent and indecisive president.

Khayembii Communique said:

It's right there:

Click to expand...

It? You really think there is only one site?

PeteEU said:

Proof that you would believe? Of course not, no one can. But when you throw 300 shells from a battleship in over land, then you are bound to kill innocent civilians. Considering the only accounts come from Syrian and Lebanese sources of the period, I doubt you would accept them at all so why bother. It is part of record that the US fired shells into Lebanon and carried out sorties in Lebanon.



Revisionist? Come on.. do you deny the US flew sorties in Lebanon and fired 300 rounds from the New Jersey? These are FACTS.. you even had 2 planes shot down for god sake.



Well if you mean we get both sides of the story .. then sure.

Click to expand...

So, IOW, you're lieing through your teeth? You're making an assumption and calling it fact. And, you call US ignorant and uneducated? Whatta joke!

You show up here with your superiority complex and this is all you have to offer to justify attacks upon American civilians, by Muslim terrorists?

ObamaYoMoma said:

If Israel attacks Bushehr after it starts up, there will be massive fallout not only in Iran, but also in the Persian Gulf and likely in some of the Gulf states as well. Not to mention that in the interim Iran is likely to get a stockpile of plutonium.

Click to expand...

If Israel is confronted with what it believes is mortal danger to its populace, it will act to secure the lives of its population.

In any case, Bushehr is low risk. Iran knows it will be under heavy scrutiny. If it tampers with the rods, its cheating will be caught and it will have lost any opportunity to mask its nuclear intentions. Bushehr will operate for civilian purposes. Iran will point to it as proof of its "benign intentions." The real danger lurks in Iran's uranium enrichment plants, some of which are secret. Destroying those plants will release some amount of radioactive fallout. There's no way around it if those plants are to be destroyed.

Actually, the Defense Department was planning to be out of Iraq before any insurgency could develop and emerge. Hence, at the time of that testimony, it was the correct assessment. However, all of that changed as soon as Bush decided to side with the State Department over the Defense Department instead.

Click to expand...

That's not the case. In testimony before Congress in February 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spoke about keeping Iran secure during the post-Hussein reconstruction period. He dismissed chances of an insurgency during that timeframe. He never specified the timeframe involved. Instead, he made the vague statement that U.S. forces would 'stay as long as necessary,' apparently during the reconstuction phase of an indeterminate period of time, and 'leave as soon as possible' without specifying the criteria by which that point of departure would be determined.

donsutherland1 said:

If Israel is confronted with what it believes is mortal danger to its populace, it will act to secure the lives of its population.

In any case, Bushehr is low risk. Iran knows it will be under heavy scrutiny. If it tampers with the rods, its cheating will be caught and it will have lost any opportunity to mask its nuclear intentions. Bushehr will operate for civilian purposes. Iran will point to it as proof of its "benign intentions." The real danger lurks in Iran's uranium enrichment plants, some of which are secret. Destroying those plants will release some amount of radioactive fallout. There's no way around it if those plants are to be destroyed.

Click to expand...

Yeah right! That sounds a lot like the same kinds of lame assurances I was hearing from the State Department when Carter negotiated that deal with the N. Koreans. Everyone knew what inevitably was going to happen except Carter, the State Department, and Clinton. You must think I was born yesterday and fell off the turnip truck this morning.

That's not the case. In testimony before Congress in February 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spoke about keeping Iran secure during the post-Hussein reconstruction period. He dismissed chances of an insurgency during that timeframe. He never specified the timeframe involved. Instead, he made the vague statement that U.S. forces would 'stay as long as necessary,' apparently during the reconstuction phase of an indeterminate period of time, and 'leave as soon as possible' without specifying the criteria by which that point of departure would be determined.

Click to expand...

I can tell you from several books I’ve read by various persons that the Defense Department never intended or planned to stay any longer than it took to scour the country of Iraq for WMD until Bush and Powell lowered the boom on Rumsfeld with that turning Iraq into a shining light bull**** a few days after the invasion was complete. In fact, General Jay Garner was replaced by Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority was established, everything then went downhill from there, because the State Department and the CPA refused to turn power over to Iraqis. Had they handed over power to the Iraqis much sooner, perhaps the insurgency could have been avoided until after we left

In any event, General Garner was to quickly hand power over to Chalabi, and the USA was to get the hell out of there ASAP, but everything changed thanks to Bush’s indecisiveness and classic State Department incompetence. In fact, the State Department has been the biggest liability in the federal government for over 50 years because it has been hijacked and co-opted by a bunch of delusional Leftists. The CIA isn’t much better, and now the Defense Department of all branches of government is also becoming hijacked and co-opted by Left. In fact, the delusional Left is hijacking our entire damn government.

It? You really think there is only one site?

Click to expand...

I was referring to the reactor, which is what they would have to take out to prevent it from going online...

ObamaYoMoma said:

Not only that but people assuming MAD will work with respect to Iran are applying their own Western sensibilities to Muslims and Muslims don’t even remotely see the world the same way those people do. Good post!

Click to expand...

Okay, tell me if the Mullahs are so crazy, why is their economic planning models derived solely to support their continued power?

If they are so crazy, why do they run cost vs benefit analysis on projects?

If they are so anti-Jew, why haven't they exterminated their growing population of 20,000 Jews?

Nothing the Mullahs have actually done suggest insanity. They gave in to peace when they lost the upper hand in their war with Iraq. They use subsidies to increase public support. They have systematic ally placed all vital assets in the hands of their most loyal soldiers.

Your views are based on what they say. Not what they have done. Looking at how they fight Israel is sufficent proof to show that they are far from insane but instead subscribe to the same military principles taught in Western armies on how to fight a superior enemy.

Words mean nothing.

Nobody in their right mind should want to wage war against Iran... I DARE anyone that thinks Iran is a threat to actually READ THE TRANSCRIPTS of any ahminedjad (sp?)'s speeches rather then what it gets spun into by the media...

I sincerely doubt that any Iranian nuclear activity is, at this point at least, anything more then for peaceful energy generation because Iran lacks the refining capacity for their oil and is dependant on gas imports for its refining capacity.

This is not to say that Iran are the 'good guys' in this, they run a tyrannical system over there... just that they are not any sort of 'threat' and they are not nearly the 'crazed muslims' that they are being made out to be. US influence has seen Irans government replaced multiple times in recent history, and diplomatically, Iran has been doing everything humanly possible to satisfy the presidency. Offering to have it's nuclear fuel under the care of many different countries... even telling the US, 'fine, YOU refine our uranium so that you know it can only be used for power generation'... of course the US wouldn't agree, the powers that be WANT WAR in the middle east...

How about instead of debating on 'whether or not we should wage war with Iran'... why don't we as the question : "Why do the powers that be so eagerly want war with Iran??"

So, if you have any religious tendencies, I would urge you to pray that this war not begin,

Now, if you support going to war with Iran, first, can you point to it on a map? Ok... just making sure. Now, think about this for a moment, the army is out winning many battles in that region, but it is a long way from winning any war. These middle eastern countries still believe in the concept of 'honor'... meaning, if the US kills their wife, child, goat, whatever... he is then honor bound to kill you or die trying... it's simply part of the culture for many in that region.

Also, consider, it took decades of 'oil for food', sanctions, etc before Iraq had been prepped to be taken over, and we still can't claim, or even define conditions for victory there, well, anything deeper then some useless catch-phrase. Iran holds a much closer to 'independant' status, look at Irans history of war... then consider the waterways that the Iranians could block off and hold closed for months... that alone would conservatively double the cost of oil within the week.

So, we're in the middle of a massive depression (if you still believe this is a 'recession on the rebound' you're deluding yourself or have been lied to), We can't AFFORD a war like this... we don't even have any productive capacity LEFT in this country, we must outsource these things courtesy of globalization. So, if you do allow ourselves to be taken to war by these, what can only be described as, psychopaths "justify" why Iran is so dangerous where you know the person is lying cause the lips are moving.

There are numerous EXPERTS around the world that openly will tell you that an attack on Iran WILL lead to a world war 3 level conflict... it will become inevitable. Meanwhile, the country will fall apart on its own weight.

obvious Child said:

Okay, tell me if the Mullahs are so crazy, why is their economic planning models derived solely to support their continued power?

If they are so crazy, why do they run cost vs benefit analysis on projects?

Click to expand...

Uh…I don’t know common sense? Actually if they had common sense they would drop the command economy routine and go to a more Laissez faire kind of economic model.

If they are so anti-Jew, why haven't they exterminated their growing population of 20,000 Jews?

Click to expand...

Because those Jews are living under submission, whereas the Jews in Israel are living on what is re-established Dar al Harb on formerly Dar al Islam. Hence, as long as those Jews living in Iran submit to the authority of Islam, they should be okay, but there is no guarantee, as the Muslims could easily revoke the Dhimma contract at any time and decide to slaughter those Jews. In fact, the entire purpose of the Dhimma contract is to eventually convert the subjugated infidels to Islam, but if after several centuries none or very few of them converts to Islam, then the Dhimma contract could arbitrarily be revoked and those Jews slaughtered. It’s happened countless times in the past.

Nothing the Mullahs have actually done suggest insanity. They gave in to peace when they lost the upper hand in their war with Iraq. They use subsidies to increase public support. They have systematic ally placed all vital assets in the hands of their most loyal soldiers.

Click to expand...

Who has been accusing them of being stupid? Islam isn’t a recipe for stupidness or a suicide pact.

Your views are based on what they say.

Click to expand...

Not quite. My views unlike yours are based on intense study of Islam and Muslims. In addition, I really could care less what they say, since most of what they say publicly is intended to deceive. Which is why I watch what they do.

Looking at how they fight Israel is sufficent proof to show that they are far from insane but instead subscribe to the same military principles taught in Western armies on how to fight a superior enemy.

Click to expand...

The only one I’ve seen so for accusing them of being insane is you? Moreover, while they employ Western principles and Western weapons, they are still Muslims. Thus, when they fight jihad they will emulate Muhammad, meaning anything goes and nothing is off the table. However, Iran’s modus operandi is to try to maintain plausible deniability whenever possible through the use of proxies.

ObamaYoMoma said:

Yeah right! That sounds a lot like the same kinds of lame assurances I was hearing from the State Department when Carter negotiated that deal with the N. Koreans. Everyone knew what inevitably was going to happen except Carter, the State Department, and Clinton. You must think I was born yesterday and fell off the turnip truck this morning.

Click to expand...

This weekend will provide the first test with respect to risk perceptions. I fully expect that when Monday dawns, Mr. Bolton's "deadline" will have been ignored both by the U.S. and Israel. Neither state believes the pivotal turning point is just days away. No senior leader from either state has even hinted at support for the Bolton idea.

In fact, there's an article in this morning's New York Times suggesting that based on information the U.S. has furnished, the U.S. and Israel are in agreement that Iran could not make a so-called "nuclear dash" for at least a year. To those who have followed various intelligence assessments, that fits squarely on the fairway of the 1-3 year window that has been mentioned widely. Some excerpts from The New York Times:

Now, American and Israeli officials believe breakout is unlikely anytime soon. For one thing, Iran, which claims it is interested in enriching uranium only for peaceful purposes, would be forced to build nuclear bombs from a limited supply of nuclear material, currently enough for two weapons. Second, such a decision would require kicking out international weapons inspectors, eliminating any ambiguity about Iran’s nuclear plans...

Israeli officials have indicated that if they saw a race for the bomb under way, they would probably take military action and encourage the United States to join the effort.

So much for the idea that after August 21, Israel would find itself unable to take military action. As noted earlier, if Israel believes it is confronted by an existential threat, it will take the military action it feels is necessary to try to reduce or eliminate that threat. No responsible leader would forego such action if he or she felt that was the only option to try to secure the survival of his or her people. In sum, there's nothing about August 21 that bars future military action nor places Iran on a trajectory that would give it a nuclear arms capability within days. Not surprisingly, August 21 will pass quietly. The critical moment for launching any possible military action--not fully assured--is still 6-9 months away (maybe longer).

obvious Child said:

If they are so anti-Jew, why haven't they exterminated their growing population of 20,000 Jews?

Click to expand...

That you would refer to a population that numbered around 80,000 in the mid seventies as "growing" to 20,0000 today indicates an agenda at work.

Gardener said:

That you would refer to a population that numbered around 80,000 in the mid seventies as "growing" to 20,0000 today indicates an agenda at work.

Click to expand...

And apparently the only form of anti-Semitism is the extermination of every single Jew.

BmanMcfly said:

Nobody in their right mind should want to wage war against Iran... I DARE anyone that thinks Iran is a threat to actually READ THE TRANSCRIPTS of any ahminedjad (sp?)'s speeches rather then what it gets spun into by the media...

I sincerely doubt that any Iranian nuclear activity is, at this point at least, anything more then for peaceful energy generation because Iran lacks the refining capacity for their oil and is dependant on gas imports for its refining capacity.

Click to expand...

Without jumping through hoops to go into specific details you apparently aren’t aware of or most probably are deliberately ignoring, you can sincerely doubt the obvious all you want, but don’t believe everyone else is going to dismiss the obvious like you. Not to mention that this isn’t remotely like the Saddam situation. So get over yourself. For one thing, both the Bush and Obama administrations have allowed Iran to kill American soldiers with impunity in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which alone is more than enough justification for war, and after Iran gets nukes the USA will pay a very severe price for letting those travesties go without very severe repercussions.

Moreover the lack of refining capacity and the reason they let their oil infrastructure fall into such a state of disrepair is because of mismanagement and also because they used the bulk of their oil revenues to pursue nuclear weapons and to finance and fund jihad per their Khomeiniest revolution. Nevertheless, the ruling Mullahs are acutely aware of their weaknesses and are taking steps to rectify them, as six refineries are currently under construction and they also just concluded a deal with Brazil to purchase ethanol to blend with their gasoline. Also, Russia just agreed to sell them gasoline as well. In addition, they have converted a significant portion of their military vehicles to operate on natural gas.

Indeed, we should have ousted the ruling Mullahs years ago, as they have been using first feckless European diplomacy and now feckless Obama administration diplomacy to buy valuable time to not only continue developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles, but also to harden their underground facilities and to build up their defenses. Which is a travesty because any war in the future thanks to our previous and current leader’s incompetence, ineptness, and fecklessness will be exponentially far bloodier and destructive than it had to be.

Indeed, when diplomacy with terrorists, which in itself is literally insane, ran its course, instead of ousting the terrorists, we started another new round of diplomacy with the same terrorists, buying them more and more valuable time and it just doesn’t get any more insane, inept, and incompetent than that, all the while that Iran was able to kill American soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, pursue nuclear weapons and long range missiles, pursue an illegal war of aggression against the Israelis via its proxies, and violate UNSCR 1701 all with impunity.

And what is the Obama administration doing today to stop the Iranians? Nothing! They are trying to coerce Israel into committing national suicide via negotiations with an unelected official from the PA that has zero authority and is only still in business because it is being protected by the IDF, all the while Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah on Israel’s southern flank are dedicated to the complete annihilation of Israel regardless of any so-called fake peace agreement that could be reached, and then the Obama administration wonders why a growing number of American people believes that Obama is a Muslim. Not to mention that the start up of Bushehr to coincide with US troop withdrawal from Iraq and the coercion of Israel to negotiate with the PA obviously have all been very carefully timed and coordinated by the Obama administration.

Now with respect to the remainder of what you wrote, sorry, it is little more than useless and absurd garbage.

donsutherland1 said:

This weekend will provide the first test with respect to risk perceptions. I fully expect that when Monday dawns, Mr. Bolton's "deadline" will have been ignored both by the U.S. and Israel. Neither state believes the pivotal turning point is just days away. No senior leader from either state has even hinted at support for the Bolton idea.

In fact, there's an article in this morning's New York Times suggesting that based on information the U.S. has furnished, the U.S. and Israel are in agreement that Iran could not make a so-called "nuclear dash" for at least a year. To those who have followed various intelligence assessments, that fits squarely on the fairway of the 1-3 year window that has been mentioned widely. Some excerpts from The New York Times:

Now, American and Israeli officials believe breakout is unlikely anytime soon. For one thing, Iran, which claims it is interested in enriching uranium only for peaceful purposes, would be forced to build nuclear bombs from a limited supply of nuclear material, currently enough for two weapons. Second, such a decision would require kicking out international weapons inspectors, eliminating any ambiguity about Iran’s nuclear plans...

Israeli officials have indicated that if they saw a race for the bomb under way, they would probably take military action and encourage the United States to join the effort.

So much for the idea that after August 21, Israel would find itself unable to take military action. As noted earlier, if Israel believes it is confronted by an existential threat, it will take the military action it feels is necessary to try to reduce or eliminate that threat. No responsible leader would forego such action if he or she felt that was the only option to try to secure the survival of his or her people. In sum, there's nothing about August 21 that bars future military action nor places Iran on a trajectory that would give it a nuclear arms capability within days. Not surprisingly, August 21 will pass quietly. The critical moment for launching any possible military action--not fully assured--is still 6-9 months away (maybe longer).

Click to expand...

You can stick with the New York Slimes, I prefer to stick with John Bolton’s assessment because like him I have practically zero confidence in our Leftist hijacked intelligence departments. After all remember it was a slam-dunk that Saddam had WMD right? However, I couldn’t help noticing previous intelligence assessments of 3 to 5 years away from a nuclear weapon all of a sudden have been reduced to as little as a year away now. How very interesting. Not to mention, how do we know that Iran doesn’t have any secret nuclear facilities we don’t know about?

Nevertheless, when the Bushehr nuclear facility becomes operational, Iran will now have two paths to nuclear weapons, and Israel can’t destroy Bushehr without contaminating Iran and the entire Persian Gulf region with nuclear fallout. Yep, lets continue “just in time” (JIT) diplomacy because it is working perfectly, for Iran that is.

Not to mention also that I can’t help but notice the timing of this article all of a sudden appearing in the New York Slimes by strange coincidence to coincide perfectly with US troop withdrawals from Iraq, the Bushehr nuclear facility startup, and the full court press to coerce Israel to negotiate with the powerless and unelected PA all at the same time. Of course, none of this is related or was very carefully planned and coordinated, right? Yeah right.

Here’s another reason why the New York Slimes is little more than a convenient outlet for the deceptive Obama administration:

To block Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the United States and the European Union recently imposed harsh economic sanctions aimed at choking off Iran’s energy supplies and prohibiting foreign banks from doing business with financial institutions inside the country.

Everyone that is halfway paying attention knows that those harsh economic sanctions are little more than a joke intended to deceive the majority of the America people into believing everything is being done that can be done to stop Iran and protect the American people.

ObamaYoMoma said:

However, I couldn’t help noticing previous intelligence assessments of 3 to 5 years away from a nuclear weapon all of a sudden have been reduced to as little as a year away now. How very interesting.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The passage of time will do that. If Iran were on a steady trajectory that would allow it to develop a nuclear weapons capability within 3-5 years from 2008, in 2010, the assessments would point to a 1-3-year timeframe if that trajectory were maintained.

Not to mention, how do we know that Iran doesn’t have any secret nuclear facilities we don’t know about?

Click to expand...

We don't. In fact, in Message #57 I noted the threat posed by uranium enrichment facilities, including secret ones. Taking some of the available time that remains before a decision must be made whether to attack to carry out intelligence work aimed at locating any secret facilities would allow for a more effective outcome.

Nevertheless, when the Bushehr nuclear facility becomes operational, Iran will now have two paths to nuclear weapons, and Israel can’t destroy Bushehr without contaminating Iran and the entire Persian Gulf region with nuclear fallout.

Click to expand...

As the article from The New York Times noted, Israel's officials don't accept the immunity argument. If Israel sees Iran making an attempt at a nuclear breakout, Israel would probably attack. I believe Israel's officials are in a position to speak about how they perceive their options and it is clear that they don't buy the argument that August 21 is the "drop dead" date for military action after which they would have no military options.

To block Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the United States and the European Union recently imposed harsh economic sanctions aimed at choking off Iran’s energy supplies and prohibiting foreign banks from doing business with financial institutions inside the country.

Click to expand...

As noted in message #25, the current sanctions regime is ineffectual. None of the sanctions in place can reasonably be described as "harsh." A crippling sanctions regime would entail barring the sale of Iranian crude oil on world markets and/or barring the sale of all refined petroleum products to Iran. Current sanctions don't even approach such criteria.

Furthermore, the financial sanctions are all but useless. Iran's financial system is not highly connected/linked to the U.S., European, and global systems. Linkages are few. Iran does not need them to conduct trade with its major partners. Severing those linkages will only have a mild impact, if that.

Khayembii Communique said:

I was referring to the reactor, which is what they would have to take out to prevent it from going online...

Click to expand...

You really think there is only one nuclear reactor? :lamo

Maybe I give the Iranians more credit than due but with all the time they've had i can't believe they would allow a big bullseye to be put on their nuclear sites. You do recall they admitted to other secret sites in the past right?

Iran has threatened to exterminate Israel in the same manner that the North Vietnamese Communists exterminated the South. >>

It was no direct threat, only a political barb to reinforce the Iran leader's base.

But that doesn't stop you wantabe Neocom hawks from rabble rousing the gullible. Fortunately even the die hard gullible finally see through it.

ricksfolly

You really think there is only one nuclear reactor?

Click to expand...

I think that we have knowledge of all the nuclear reactors that are in the process of being constructed, yes. A nuclear reactor isn't something that you can hide.

You could argue that there are other "nuclear sites" but this is the only nuclear reactor that is scheduled to go online on the 21st.

ObamaYoMoma said:

Without jumping through hoops to go into specific details you apparently aren’t aware of or most probably are deliberately ignoring, you can sincerely doubt the obvious all you want, but don’t believe everyone else is going to dismiss the obvious like you. Not to mention that this isn’t remotely like the Saddam situation.

Click to expand...

It's not REMOTELY like the situation with Saddam, except the ONLY difference in the rhetoric being used to "justify" the need for war with Iran is the switch from the Q in Iraq to the N in Iran. Remember, Yellow cake, that they KNEW where the WMD's were, etc, etc... anyway..

So get over yourself. For one thing, both the Bush and Obama administrations have allowed Iran to kill American soldiers with impunity in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which alone is more than enough justification for war, and after Iran gets nukes the USA will pay a very severe price for letting those travesties go without very severe repercussions.

Click to expand...

Ok... fine then, Iranians are killing americans in Iraq, then let's have a vote in the house and senate and sign an official declaration of war, the proof and have this be a LEGALLY justified war (yes, I know, we don't believe in 'just war theory' as a nation anymore, I'm just saying).

You also fail to notice that we have placed sanctions on Iran, which on its own is an act of war, luckily, the Iranians have the sense to know not to retaliate.

Moreover the lack of refining capacity and the reason they let their oil infrastructure fall into such a state of disrepair is because of mismanagement and also because they used the bulk of their oil revenues to pursue nuclear weapons and to finance and fund jihad per their Khomeiniest revolution. Nevertheless, the ruling Mullahs are acutely aware of their weaknesses and are taking steps to rectify them, as six refineries are currently under construction and they also just concluded a deal with Brazil to purchase ethanol to blend with their gasoline. Also, Russia just agreed to sell them gasoline as well. In addition, they have converted a significant portion of their military vehicles to operate on natural gas.

Click to expand...

So, is this as definitive and verifiable as the 'yellow cake' justification for Iraq??

As for the Russians, the fact that they have now agreed to supply the uranium to the Iranian nuclear facility, is somewhat of a slap in the face to the US given the wording Obama chose to use to define the sanctions against Iran...

Now, what would you expect the Iranians to do when the US (and israel) are bloodlusting against them?? They know what's coming... Hell, remember how Bush era diplomacy with Iraq ?? "Do what we say and we'll bomb you anyway" would serve as an adequate paraphrasing.

Indeed, we should have ousted the ruling Mullahs years ago, as they have been using first feckless European diplomacy and now feckless Obama administration diplomacy to buy valuable time to not only continue developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles, but also to harden their underground facilities and to build up their defenses. Which is a travesty because any war in the future thanks to our previous and current leader’s incompetence, ineptness, and fecklessness will be exponentially far bloodier and destructive than it had to be.

Click to expand...

It's more like they've come to realize that they don't NEED to act as puppets and have removed the strings to allow them to act independently... You're probably going off Fox / CNN propaganda on this issue which continuously fails to note how all these Uranium enrichment deals have been for low-refined uranium that would then be disposed of by the country that supplied it, thus ensuring that no weapons could be manufactured. That said, I have no doubts that Iran would be interested in nuclear weapons, given that the country is all but surrounded by nuclear powers.

Indeed, when diplomacy with terrorists, which in itself is literally insane, ran its course, instead of ousting the terrorists, we started another new round of diplomacy with the same terrorists, buying them more and more valuable time and it just doesn’t get any more insane, inept, and incompetent than that, all the while that Iran was able to kill American soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, pursue nuclear weapons and long range missiles, pursue an illegal war of aggression against the Israelis via its proxies, and violate UNSCR 1701 all with impunity.

Click to expand...

Just to point out the double standard, it's been MANY YEARS since the US has engaged in a legal war according to the constitutional process. Without getting into the details of the countless human rights atrocities the US has been responsible for causing... not to say that Iran is good, but more to point out the hypocrisy... also to point out that the blanket label of Iranians as terrorists as ironic.

And what is the Obama administration doing today to stop the Iranians? Nothing!

Click to expand...

Yes... but, beyond diplomatic negotiations, what right does Obama have (or any president have) to interfere with the internal politics of a foreign country??? (also nothing)

They are trying to coerce Israel into committing national suicide via negotiations with an unelected official from the PA that has zero authority and is only still in business because it is being protected by the IDF, all the while Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah on Israel’s southern flank are dedicated to the complete annihilation of Israel regardless of any so-called fake peace agreement that could be reached,

Click to expand...

This paragraph is a compilation of propaganda half-truths... I'll just leave it at that to save space.

and then the Obama administration wonders why a growing number of American people believes that Obama is a Muslim.

Click to expand...

Again, look to the sources not the spin.

Not to mention that the start up of Bushehr to coincide with US troop withdrawal from Iraq

Click to expand...

Again, this 'withdrawal' is NOT a withdrawal... look at the source not the spin... simply, any soldiers that are leaving are being replaced by private contractors (re: mercenaries)

and the coercion of Israel to negotiate with the PA obviously have all been very carefully timed and coordinated by the Obama administration.

Click to expand...

"In politics nothing happens by accident" - Roosevelt

Now with respect to the remainder of what you wrote, sorry, it is little more than useless and absurd garbage.

Click to expand...

You're fine to have your opinion that it's useless... but the stark reality is that the american empire cannot AFFORD another war. Not without creating an american version of the Weimar republic.

I would heartily urge you to not accept what gets spouted on FOX and / or CNN as the reality of the situation... get closer to source information when you can and see just how different what's being pushed in the media is from reality... especially on the Iran issue. The fact is that Iran has made SEVERAL attempts to make deals that would in no uncertain terms GUARANTEE that it would remain impossible for them to create a nuclear weapon, and with Bush-style diplomacy, Obama has said 'no' on every option...

It'd be funny if a war with Iran weren't so serious an issue.

Apocalypse said:

And apparently the only form of anti-Semitism is the extermination of every single Jew.

Click to expand...

My theory is that the placement of the bar for what any person considers antisemitic reflects the point at which they can consider themselves as barely escaping the definition of the term.

ObamaYoMoma said:

Uh…I don’t know common sense? Actually if they had common sense they would drop the command economy routine and go to a more Laissez faire kind of economic model.

Click to expand...

LOL. Iran does not have a command economy any more then we do. It's hilarious how you just argued that Iran's economy is state planned like the USSR was.

then the Dhimma contract could arbitrarily be revoked and those Jews slaughtered. It’s happened countless times in the past.

Click to expand...

You actually believe this to be a real happenstance in today's world? Or is this just anti-Islam ideology?

Who has been accusing them of being stupid? Islam isn’t a recipe for stupidness or a suicide pact.

Click to expand...

You are.

Not quite. My views unlike yours are based on intense study of Islam and Muslims. In addition, I really could care less what they say, since most of what they say publicly is intended to deceive. Which is why I watch what they do.

Click to expand...

And what they do does not support your positions.

The only one I’ve seen so for accusing them of being insane is you.

Click to expand...

One must wonder if you can read. Especially after I challenged your views that they were insane.

Moreover, while they employ Western principles and Western weapons, they are still Muslims. Thus, when they fight jihad they will emulate Muhammad, meaning anything goes and nothing is off the table. However, Iran’s modus operandi is to try to maintain plausible deniability whenever possible through the use of proxies.

Click to expand...

So your argument is whenever they actually show they aren't insane, they are really actually hiding their insanity. Apparently using proxies as the US did during the Cold War is actually a sign of insanity.

Got it. You define insanity as you like independent of actual actions.

danarhea said:

You know, there is some pretty ironic history behind this plant. It was begun in the 1970's by the Shah of Iran, with the blessing of the western world. After the downfall of the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini issued an edict that no nuclear plants were to be built, so it sat idle until after Khomeini died. In 1995, work was resumed on the plant, with the help of Russia.

I am torn on this issue, but I believe that nuclear power is the right of all nations. The problem with nuclear power, though, is the waste, which can be turned into material for a nuclear weapon. Once this power plant goes online, Iran can have a nuclear weapon in approximately 6 years, if it wants one.

It is too late now to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, as that will spread radiation, not only among the civilian population of Iran, but also beyond it's borders. Like it or not, the genie is now out of the bottle, and we must deal with it. Pressure must be kept up on Iran, and the strategy changed from stopping them from acquiring nuclear technology to forcing them to give up its nuclear waste, offering them compensation for it.

I believe that the window for stopping Iran from having nuclear power has been closed, and we will, as the old Chinese proverb says, be living in interesting times. We must now adapt our strategy to account for this development. And make no mistake - We must let Iran know that ANY use of weapons of mass destruction will result in the complete annihilation of their nation.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

While I agree that we need to keep quite the close eye on Iran in the future, don't you think it's a bit... Unilateral and blinded, perhaps, to say that complete annihilation is in the cards?

Last month, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton claimed that Israel had just days to strike Iran to avoid its becoming a nuclear state. During the debate/discussion that followed, there was question whether Mr. Bolton was alone in his assessment about an August 21 "deadline." In other words, there was question whether either the U.S. or Israel saw things the same way he did. Neither did. As a result, neither country carried out military strikes.

Now, there is an article that suggests that Israel still sees a potential nuclear threat being 1 1/2 to 2 years away. The Jerusalem Post reported:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that "Iran could reach nuclear capabilities within a year and half or two years if they decide to break all the rules, but it might take a little longer," during an interview with FOX News on Monday.

In sum, Israel believes that there remains time to resolve the issue before any decision on military strikes needs to be made.