AIPAC pushing war?

[notquiteright]

Some are concerned about the newest Sen. Lieberman sponsored resolution to reset the red line with Iran over nuclear development. The new line is the CAPABILITY to develop a nuclear weapon. Many experts feel that is a much lower standard than develop nuclear weapons.

While the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is being coy over their efforts to promote the new line. Experts say the Resolution will be brought up in March.

Iran already has the 'capability', as defined by many experts on both sides of intervention, to produce the nuclear weapons. What it lacks is sufficient refined fissionable material and then needs to mill the material and assemble the detonation web. What is worrisome is this could be the revival of VP Cheney's 1% solution. Neo-cons felt America had the right to intervene militarily anyplace they felt there was a 1% chance of America's 'interest' being threatened.

Some are concerned the Pro-Israel crowd in government and lobbying circles will attempt to make this a 'soft on terrorism' issue right before the election forcing both parties to adopt a more militant footing in the oil rich region.

[SonicBoom]

It's all about weapons grade material. The rest of the equation is trivial.

Fuck it. If Iran wants to bankrupt the country and then commit suicide via using a nuke, let em.

[avsp]

Definitive statements now about what the west will do should Iran use a nuke weapon & if they provide one to a proxy third party should be made plain & apparent now.

Even tho this may stoke the situation & provide some pre-emptive escalation now it'll be better than dicking around at the time

[notquiteright]

Sounds rather vague AVSP, you might consider a career in Politics.

The devil dwells in the details, of which you have provided none.

So what should 'the West', which means all bullshit aside USofA blood and money spilled, do if Iran goes nuke or ships a few suitcase bombs out?

What do we do when the stranglehold on trade in and out of Iran, an act of war for those keeping score, has them attacking oil shipments?

How does Israel being the only Nuclear power in the Middle East make the region peaceful? They have been for decades and it doesn't look peaceful or stable to me.

Why can't MAD work with smaller nations like it did with two superpowers, one that was described as Gawdless and willing to take huge losses to 'win' a nuclear exchange?

[avsp]

Yeah, I think MAD would work in the region just like it has globally, in the inidian sub-continent etc ..., untill it doesnt.

Stuff should be spelt out now as MAD depends on it.

I was discussing this yesterday with someone who felt an Iranian nuke would reign in Irainian support for Hezbollah etc, purely because Iran would understand that the Israeli's might misinterpret Hezbollah's actions as part of some pre-strike disraction & thus launch a pre-emptive nuke strike of thewir own.

Its the terrorist hand-off, or worse theft that worries me more tho.

But ultimately, for Iran, this is all about regime security especailly externally, but also internally too.

When it comes down to it there eff all we can do to stop them short of full scale invasion really & I doubt we could effectively stay there forever.

Really, the west/UN/US f*cked this up way way back by letting the UK, France get the bomb, then Israel, India & Pakistan. Should've nuked the capitals flat them as soon as they successfully tested, ..., but hindsihghts a bitch blah blah blah

[notquiteright]

Well, back in the Cold War days the USofA wanted as many different places capable of hurling nukes at those E-Vile Gawdless Commie bastards as could be found.

So that explains the UK and France getting nukes, (I don't think the world would have smiled politely if we had nuked London or Paris....ok maybe Paris)

MAD works, Israel can puff up all it wants about never again and having to be able to defend itself, even if it means using the Neo-Con pre-emptive strikes. However the reality is without the USofA Israel would have already been a historic footnote in post WW-II fantasy, the last gasp of European colonial rule.

As it was it will forever be... no Israel without strong USofA protection.

Now seeing how Iran was repeatedly used and abused by England, later Russia and finally the USofA over it's oil reserves I see the Persian nukes more a national shield from invasion than any one regime's lever.

When it comes to a terrorist getting nukes, I kinda thought those Roosian suitcase bombs or all the fear mongering over broke Roosian scientists selling their services to terrorists, bringing the refined materials with them.

[avsp]

Yeah MAD works ... till it doesnt, then nothing works at all.

I dont see anyone pushing for Israel to give up the nukes it doesnt have.

And I dopnt see how anyone can stop Iran getting a nuke if it wants & then everyone will want one.

Its all way way way too late really

[notquiteright]

Way too late and way to arrogant of 'western' cultures to think they can dictate who gets to own a nuke.

Israel can't survive without outside military and economic welfare, all puffing up by their right wing ranters aside. It is difficult to feed your people with nukes, no matter what the covenant says.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by avsp

But ultimately, for Iran, this is all about regime security especailly externally, but also internally too.

I think it's (also, or more) about wanting to be top dog in the region and having more influence.

Originally Posted by avsp

When it comes down to it there eff all we can do to stop them short of full scale invasion really & I doubt we could effectively stay there forever.

I think you're right here. Sanctions are not working. (I think, personally, sanctions and diplomacy is the West's "crossing the t's, dotting the i's" so it can say "Well, we did everything we could short of war....") So what do you do? Eventually, the only options are going to be military conflict, or just accept an Iranian bomb. Both are bad options. And I think the West is war-fatigued.

Originally Posted by avsp

Really, the west/UN/US f*cked this up way way back by letting the UK, France get the bomb, then Israel, India & Pakistan. Should've nuked the capitals flat them as soon as they successfully tested, ..., but hindsihghts a bitch blah blah blah

Wait...are you saying the United States should have nuked London et al when England & Co. got the bomb?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by notquiteright

Way too late and way to arrogant of 'western' cultures to think they can dictate who gets to own a nuke.

Israel can't survive without outside military and economic welfare, all puffing up by their right wing ranters aside. It is difficult to feed your people with nukes, no matter what the covenant says.

It's not western culture. It's the entire world. All of the signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 189 different countries. Including China, Turkey, UAE, Tunisia, Vietnam, Thailand, Syira... I mean basically the entire planet agrees on this stuff except for North Korea . Iran is actually a signatory on this treaty but they are going against their word. There are really only 3 states that never signed it. India, Pakistan and Israel. NK signed it and then backed out.

[notquiteright]

You can knock 186 countries off the list once you set the bar at can actually do something about others gaining the bomb.

You don't see China or Japan leading the world against North Korea, Iran, or even back when Israel was developing 'the bomb'.

It is one of those odd twists in history/rhetoric/common sense that the only nation to use the weapon demands the right to determine who can have the weapon.

The West has been fixated on Kipling's 'White Man's Burden', no EG I am not playing the race card

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by notquiteright

You can knock 186 countries off the list once you set the bar at can actually do something about others gaining the bomb.

You don't see China or Japan leading the world against North Korea, Iran, or even back when Israel was developing 'the bomb'.

It is one of those odd twists in history/rhetoric/common sense that the only nation to use the weapon demands the right to determine who can have the weapon.

The West has been fixated on Kipling's 'White Man's Burden', no EG I am not playing the race card

I don't feel that this is an entirely accurate picture. When the NPT was concieved of, it wasn't just the west. IT was the world community getting together and saying " You know what, nukes are pretty bad and the would would be better off if they didn't exist. We all agree to stop advancing that technology. For those of us who already have it, we agree to slowly deconstruct our arsenals. We also agree not to give the tech to anyone else nor will we assist anyone else in developing thier own tech. For those of us who don't already have it, we won't try to obtain it. "

That is the essence of the treaty, and the entire world agreed it was good.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by notquiteright

The West has been fixated on Kipling's 'White Man's Burden', no EG I am not playing the race card

[notquiteright]

No your playing the punk card, EG

Lou-
The NPT isn't the start of time. It is more like a continuation of the 'keep the natives from getting modern weapons' policy. Take out the big boys and you have a group of small nations who are subsidized by the block captains to agree not to bankrupt themselves to obtain nukes AND sign into 'mutual defense treaties' with a Big Brother. (Read about nuclear sharing within NATO at the same time the US pledged not to proliferate.)

A quick glance at the globe outlining what nations are in the nuclear free zone vs the nuke owning and sharing says it all.

A fun fact is who is the depository- the USofA, the 'Kingdom' of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, and the USSR.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by notquiteright

No your playing the punk card, EG

No, not at all. The only punk-bitch here is you, dude. You've been a punk-bitch from your very first interactions here with Stolz and others. Anyway, there's a message based on all the emoticons. You wrote something completely stupid and unnecessary (big shock there!) so I responded appropriately. Let me explain:

= you're beating a dead horse

= you're a sack-rider (and it shows!)

= pretty self-explanatory, but just in-case: you should fuck-off

= you're a rant-machine

= your rants are hysterically pathetic

= you're an attention whore

= you've already posted this lameness once before

[notquiteright]

Awww you have your panties in a wad again EG?

Trolling in yet another thread, launching ignorant attacks which I do believe are against the rules, you have a long history of wild and impotent attacks on the internet.

Very brave and adult of you...

[Donkey®]

Israelis Agree Iran Hasn't Decided To Construct Nuclear Bomb | Fox News



Sooooo...let's attack anyway?

[notquiteright]

Well if we learned nothing from Saddam Hussein it is 'they' can hide what they don't have amazingly well.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Sooooo...let's attack anyway?

I think the concern is that Iran is moving facilities that could be used to construct a weapon so deeply underground that the window of opportunity to destroy those facilities short of launching a massive land invasion or using nukes is growing smaller. That being said, I don't think Israel or the United States should attack Iran unless a clear and present imminent danger is posed and I am not sure we've reached that point yet.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

I think the concern is that Iran is moving facilities that could be used to construct a weapon so deeply underground that the window of opportunity to destroy those facilities short of launching a massive land invasion or using nukes is growing smaller. That being said, I don't think Israel or the United States should attack Iran unless a clear and present imminent danger is posed and I am not sure we've reached that point yet.

Also, they are producing the very hard to obtain highly enriched plutonium.( or was it uranium?) the fact that they are doing this is a threat, even without a bomb.