Yes, but it's not about five years from now is it? It's about Iran's nuclear program coming to a full stop altogether or else...and by the way "all options *are* on the table" (which is direct and repeating quote from Obama himself). When you look at the reality of what is going on, there is little room negotiation and interpretation of what this really means.
It's an non negotiable ultimatum leading headlong into military conflict as a means of resolution. Plain and simple.
Try thinking from Iran's perspective on the issue. It definitely helps to evaluate all sides of the equation
I am thinking about it from Iran's point of view. thats why they are telling the world they are moving forward with a nuke program....they know America doesnt have the means or the will to invade or occupy them. yet you think its inevitable and imminent.
I am thinking about it from Iran's point of view. thats why they are telling the world they are moving forward with a nuke program....they know America doesnt have the means or the will to invade or occupy them. yet you think its inevitable and imminent.
So their existing nuclear reactors get bombed, as they won't stop. I'm sure they have no idea how to hide anything after that point of aggression takes place. I imagine someone will invent psychic munitions, and the problem will solve itself by default
cool..
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
So their existing nuclear reactors get bombed, as they won't stop. I'm sure they have no idea how to hide anything after that point of aggression takes place. I imagine someone will invent psychic munitions, and the problem will solve itself by default
cool..
I dont want to put words in your mouth. hopefully you wont give some abstract answer and one liner.
just so we are clear. you think America will invade and occupy Iran in the coming months?
Iran will move forward with their program. and from I've read they are many years away from weapons grade stuff. maybe 5+ years from now. at most, bombs would be dropped from afar, probably with Israel's lead, on nuke sites.
a full invasion and occupation of Iran is not on the table.
maybe you should start a world of warcraft thread of something. you seem to enjoy fantasy land.
I take it back. looks like they are much closer to a nuke. Roland, I'll guess you are in the camp that believe they only plan to use it for energy?
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran now has more than 5,000 centrifuges operating and enriching uranium at the country's central plant, its nuclear chief said Wednesday, in the country's latest defiance of U.N. demands to halt its controversial program.
Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said Iran will continue to install centrifuges and enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel for the country's future nuclear power plants. The number of centrifuges is up sharply from the 4,000 Iran said were running in August at the plant in the central Iranian city of Natanz.
Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel. Further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons.
The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the claim and insists it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce reactor fuel.
"At this point, more than 5,000 centrifuges are operating in Natanz and enriching uranium," said Aghazadeh, who is head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. He spoke to reporters during an exhibition of Iranian nuclear achievements at Tehran University.
The United Nations Security Council has already imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran for its refusal to freeze the uranium enrichment program.
Flaunting Iran's defiance, Aghazadeh said the country will never suspend enrichment. "Suspension has not been defined in our lexicon," he added.
During the enrichment process, uranium gas is spun in a series of centrifuges known as "cascades" to purify it. Lower levels of enrichment produce reactor fuel but higher grades can build a weapon.
At the exhibition, Iran for the first time put on public display one of its P-1 centrifuges and officials at the exhibition explained various parts of machine to visitors.
The P-1 centrifuge is the workhorse of Iran's enrichment program. It's run in cascades of 164 machines.
In February, Iranian officials confirmed that they have started using the IR-2 centrifuge, which can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate of P-1.
Iran has said it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that will ultimately involve 54,000 centrifuges.
In its latest report on Iran last month, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said that Tehran had not significantly expanded full or partial operation of nearly 4,000 centrifuges at its cavernous underground facility at Natanz, a city about 300 miles (500 kilometers) south of Tehran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said the Islamic Republic was installing, or preparing to install, thousands more of the machines that spin uranium gas to enrich it — with the target of 9,000 centrifuges by next year.
IAEA officials could not be immediately reached for a comment on Aghazadeh's claim Wednesday.
Aghazadeh said Iran has also made "good progress" in constructing a 40 Megawatt heavy-water reactor near Arak in central Iran. "The heavy water plant is experiencing a production beyond its capacity," he said without elaborating.
The West has repeatedly called on Iran to stop construction of the reactor, fearing it could be used as a second track toward building a warhead.
When it is finished, the Arak reactor could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon each year, experts have said.
Aghazadeh also claimed Iran has conducted research on nuclear fusion — allegedly another one of its "priorities" — but didn't provide more details on the research. "It started long ago," he said.
Nuclear fusion is an energy producing process which naturally takes place in the sun and stars. Scientists have long sought a simple way to produce fusion in hopes of harnessing it as an energy source.
Also Wednesday, Iranian state television reported that the country successfully launched a second rocket into space, following up on the first such launch in February.
The rocket, entitled "Kavoshgar 2" or Explorer 2, made it to the lower reaches of space and returned to earth 40 minutes later on a parachute. It wasn't clear when the launch took place.
Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
U.S. officials have asked Israel to refrain from launching any major military action in the region during the waning days of the Bush presidency, Israeli sources have told TIME. Previously, some Israeli military officials had hinted to the media that if Israel were to carry out its threats to strike at Iranian nuclear installations, it might do so before Barack Obama enters the White House in January. But now a Defense Ministry official says, “We have been warned off.”
The call for restraint was relayed to Israeli officials by senior U.S. counterparts, TIME’s sources say, and it is likely to be reinforced during Monday’s valedictory meeting in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George W. Bush. (See pictures of President Bush in the Middle East.)
Washington’s concerns are not limited to the possibility of Israel attacking Iran, the sources say; U.S. officials have also cautioned Israelis against launching a ground assault inside the besieged Palestinian territory of Gaza in a bid to stop militants there from firing rockets into southern Israel. Bush Administration officials warn that such an attack could cost many lives and jeopardize the painstaking, thus far futile efforts of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
You do know that if (when) Israel attacks,
the US will "support" her.
Right?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I take it back. looks like they are much closer to a nuke. Roland, I'll guess you are in the camp that believe they only plan to use it for energy?
Yeah.
I'm in that camp too.
What makes you think it is NOT intended for power plants?
Bigotry?
Constant bombardment with high level US propaganda?
Or maybe you have some legitimate source of news regarding HIGH LEVEL enrichment?
So far, EVERY SINGLE IAEA REPORT HAS CONSISTENTLY PROVEN ENRICHMENT TO BE WELL UNDER 5% -- a range suitable EXCLUSIVELY FOR USE AS A POWER SOURCE.
I have pulled up these official IAEA reports time and time again.
What source do you have to suggest anything different?
All your article says is that they are ramping up low-level enrichment production.
Something you would start doing if you were serious about supplying your country with nuclear power.
:rolleyes:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I dont want to put words in your mouth. hopefully you wont give some abstract answer and one liner.
just so we are clear. you think America will invade and occupy Iran in the coming months?
It's up to the US and Israel as far as the time frame is concerned. It is imminent on the current path.
The notion of dominating a country such as Iran at arms length is a somewhat of a unrealistic one.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yeah.
I'm in that camp too.
What makes you think it is NOT intended for power plants?
Bigotry?
Constant bombardment with high level US propaganda?
Or maybe you have some legitimate source of news regarding HIGH LEVEL enrichment?
So far, EVERY SINGLE IAEA REPORT HAS CONSISTENTLY PROVEN ENRICHMENT TO BE WELL UNDER 5% -- a range suitable EXCLUSIVELY FOR USE AS A POWER SOURCE.
I have pulled up these official IAEA reports time and time again.
What source do you have to suggest anything different?
All your article says is that they are ramping up low-level enrichment production.
Something you would start doing if you were serious about supplying your country with nuclear power.
:rolleyes:
ah, the UN wants enrichment to stop, not just the US. did you even read the article?
Flaunting Iran's defiance, Aghazadeh said the country will never suspend enrichment. "Suspension has not been defined in our lexicon," he added.
Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel. Further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said the Islamic Republic was installing, or preparing to install, thousands more of the machines that spin uranium gas to enrich it — with the target of 9,000 centrifuges by next year.
Also Wednesday, Iranian state television reported that the country successfully launched a second rocket into space, following up on the first such launch in February.
The rocket, entitled "Kavoshgar 2" or Explorer 2, made it to the lower reaches of space and returned to earth 40 minutes later on a parachute. It wasn't clear when the launch took place.
Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
It's up to the US and Israel as far as the time frame is concerned. It is imminent on the current path.
The notion of dominating a country such as Iran at arms length is a somewhat of a unrealistic one.
wow ok so you think an invasion and occupation of Iran is IMMINENT. ok. all this with a new liberal president who was against the Iraq war, has an economic crisis to deal with, 2 wars to continue and try end, is magically going to start a war with one of the biggest countries in the middle east. gotcha.
up up down down left left left a b a b select start.
wow ok so you think an invasion and occupation of Iran is IMMINENT. ok. all this with a new liberal president who was against the Iraq war, has an economic crisis to deal with, 2 wars to continue and try end, is magically going to start a war with one of the biggest countries in the middle east. gotcha.
up up down down left left left a b a b select start.
It is is imminent on the current path. Yes. Looking ahead and following existing (and past) trends is somewhat of requirement in this discussion.
If you want to switch back to specifics over philosophies with regards to what are the right and wrong courses of action....go ahead. In any event I remember someone voting for funding the war in Iraq a few times despite saying he was against it. I like to look at actions over words, as politicians do and say anything to get votes. Everyone knows that.
Follow the trend. Look at the game plan, and do some very simple calculations. Enter one war, overthrow the political structure, exit, enter another war....repeat. I believe if you look into history, it will confirm.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
there is a HUGE difference from dropping a few bombs from afar and all out invasion AND occupation.
You do know that..
Right?
The only factor is time.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It is is imminent on the current path. Yes. Looking ahead and following existing (and past) trends is somewhat of requirement in this discussion.
If you want to switch back to specifics over philosophies with regards to what are the right and wrong courses of action....go ahead. In any event I remember someone voting for funding the war in Iraq a few times despite saying he was against it. I like to look at actions over words, as politicians do and say anything to get votes. Everyone knows that.
Follow the trend. Look at the game plan, and do some very simple calculations. Enter one war, overthrow the political structure, exit, enter another war....repeat. I believe if you look into it history, it will confirm.
then you have no idea what current path the US is on. the path has changed since 2003 in case you havent noticed. which obviously you havent cuz you seem to think its 2003. for example....
Iraq war was unpopular, unnecessary, and too expensive.
USA has way bigger issues to deal with then Iran. namely the economy.
and I love how you people love to slam Obama for voting to "fund the war". he clearly stated his position about Iraq many times. voting against the funding bill would only put our soldiers in danger.
then you have no idea what current path the US is on. the path has changed since 2003 in case you havent noticed. which obviously you havent cuz you seem to think its 2003. for example....
Iraq war was unpopular, unnecessary, and too expensive.
USA has way bigger issues to deal with then Iran. namely the economy.
and I love how you people love to slam Obama for voting to "fund the war". he clearly stated his position about Iraq many times. voting against the funding bill would only put our soldiers in danger.
The path has changed since 2003. Has it? Really? I'm not seeing the "about face" angle you claim to see. It's a bit larger than what one president says they want, and what actually happens on the ground from those that advise him on what to do.
Advisers (military et all)...they do play a rather key part in the decision making process at the end of the day. One could say they really call the shots, and the President really just breaks/sells it to the public in their elected charismatic ways with a heaping helping hand from the media.
In any event Iraq has been restructured now. They can be gradually toned down, but I'd be extremely surprised (astonished) to see complete withdrawal, as that is not the way it's been observed the world around from a military involvement perspective.
The problem with Iran is that they are already privy to the game, and a much harder target to coerce into submission.
This is why no matter how many bombs you drop on Iran (short of a glass parking lot), they will resist harder and harder to the point the resistance factor will have to be scrubbed from the cracks and crevices by hand.
The clock is ticking...the ultimatum is in full swing. Stop unconditionally or else.
tick tock..
edit: or perhaps the "do this or else" rhetoric could be dropped altogether, and serious negotiations could begin with Iran on how to resolve the source of their dismay. This would, without question, however involve a two state solution between Israel and Palestine. Until that time....it just keeps on going despite what any politician says they want to do. Without seeing any actual results it's all just talk at this point.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The path has changed since 2003. Has it? Really? I'm not seeing the "about face" angle you claim to see. It's a bit larger than what one president says they want, and what actually happens on the ground from those that advise him on what to do.
Advisers (military et all)...they do play a rather key part in the decision making process at the end of the day. One could say they really call the shots, and the President really just breaks/sells it to the public in their elected charismatic ways with a heaping helping hand from the media.
In any event Iraq has been restructured now. They can be gradually toned down, but I'd be extremely surprised (astonished) to see complete withdrawal, as that is not the way it's been observed the world around from a military involvement perspective.
The problem with Iran is that they are already privy to the game, and a much harder target to coerce into submission.
This is why no matter how many bombs you drop on Iran (short of a glass parking lot), they will resist harder and harder to the point the resistance factor will have to be scrubbed from the cracks and crevices by hand.
The clock is ticking...the ultimatum is in full swing. Stop unconditionally or else.
tick tock..
again, you are living in a reality created by you. you are completely ignoring the facts of the current political and economic climate of the united states.
we now have a president who did not support a war with Iraq yet he is going to invade and occupy Iran. sorry, no.
the United States is almost 6 years deep into a war that has cost way too many lives, money, and respect throughout the world. yet we are still going to do it again and invade and occupy Iran. sorry no.
we are knee deep in a recession and economic crisis not seen since the great depression yet we are going to launch a war with Iran that will cost hundreds of billions more. sorry no.
you love to keep referring back to the hardline talk the US has engaged in with Iran. well thats all it is, talk. both of our countries like to pretend we have the bigger dick. but actually, Obama has put the option of sitting down face to face with Iran. has Bush? no. that option was off the table. yet you claim we are on the same path. sorry no.
ah, the UN wants enrichment to stop, not just the US. did you even read the article?
Yeah.
Whats your point?
All i can give you is a resounding "so what", or "who gives a fuck" in return.
If i recall, Iran would not be the first country in the region to repeatedly and continually violate either UN or IAEA mandates ... Israel ... cough ... cough.
SO.
So what.
The UN Security Council wants enrichment to stop.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has REPEATEDLY, CONSISTENTLY, and CONTINUES TO state that Iran is in compliance with IAEA requirements for PEACEFULL ENRICHMENT.
F. Summary
22. The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and ctivities.
Now of COURSE, since the IAEA is under CONSTANT pressure from the WEST to find SOME reason to censure Iran, it has to REPEATEDLY come up with NEW MANDATES AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS for Iran.
So EVERY month, after they say Iran is in compliance with "non-diversion", they "ask" Iran to disclose 3 or 4 new items ... like all of its defense budget purchases, and a list of all of its defense industry contracts and such ...
E. Possible Military Dimensions
14. There remain a number of outstanding issues, identified in the Director General’s last report to the Board (GOV/2008/15, para. 14), which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. As indicated in the Director General’s report, for the Agency to be able to address these concerns and provide assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, it is essential that Iran, inter alia, provide the information and access necessary to: resolve questions related to the alleged studies; provide more information on the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related; and clarify the production of nuclear equipment and components by companies belonging to defence industries.
However, Iran has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information.
23. The Agency, regrettably, has not been able to make any substantive progress on the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues which remain of serious concern. For the Agency to make progress, an important first step, in connection with the alleged studies, is for Iran to clarify the extent to which information contained in the relevant documentation is factually correct and where, in its view, such information may have been modified or relates to alternative, non-nuclear purposes. Iran
needs to provide the Agency with substantive information to support its statements and provide access to relevant documentation and individuals in this regard. Unless Iran provides such transparency, and implements the Additional Protocol, the Agency will not be able to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.
24. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP, and the installation of new cascades and the operation of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has also continued with the
construction of the IR–40.
25. The Director General urges Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date.
26. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.
So,
IS THE USA ACTIVELY DISCLOSING ITS DEFENSE CONTRACT SUPPLY LISTS TO THE IAEA? HOW ABOUT ISRAEL?
ISRAEL WHO HAS BEEN IN DEFIANCE OF THE UN AND THE IAEA REGARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS.
Are you worried about that one?
Or just the evil arabs?
:rolleyes:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
there is a HUGE difference from dropping a few bombs from afar and all out invasion AND occupation.
You do know that..
Right?
Absolutely.
I don't think there is a chance in hell of the US actually invading Iran for an occupation.
The Iranian military has well over a half million active members.
The US isn't stupid.
I'm just providing you that article on the grounds that your reticence to even discuss an invasion makes me think you believe that Mr. Obama wouldn't dare to even involve himself in a skirmish with Iran.
And we know that assumption is just flat out wrong.
So what do YOU see happening?
Lets start with the assumption that Israel begins with tactical strikes against Iranian fuel processing facilities.
you're right. I should give Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, the peace loving tolerant people that they are, much more credit.
as long as Iran is in compliance with the IAEA, I have no problem with what they are doing. unfortunately I think Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are lying pieces of scum that would have no problem firing a nuclear missle at Israel or the US.
and no, I don't like that Israel or US have nukes. or the several other countries around the world that have them. fuck it, lets all have them!
again, you are living in a reality created by you. you are completely ignoring the facts of the current political and economic climate of the united states.
we now have a president who did not support a war with Iraq yet he is going to invade and occupy Iran. sorry, no.
the United States is almost 6 years deep into a war that has cost way too many lives, money, and respect throughout the world. yet we are still going to do it again and invade and occupy Iran. sorry no.
we are knee deep in a recession and economic crisis not seen since the great depression yet we are going to launch a war with Iran that will cost hundreds of billions more. sorry no.
you love to keep referring back to the hardline talk the US has engaged in with Iran. well thats all it is, talk. both of our countries like to pretend we have the bigger dick. but actually, Obama has put the option of sitting down face to face with Iran. has Bush? no. that option was off the table. yet you claim we are on the same path. sorry no.
Yes but you're forgetting Obama's tenacious position on fighting terrorism, and the reason why terrorists are, by and large, pissed off in the first place.
I'm not sure you've connected all the dots yet. All roads lead back to Israel, and what is happening there first.
If Obama is able to coerce Israel to change it's philosophy, it will be a very convincing and crucial first step. So far that seems to be a very unlikely reality (see AIPAC), that will require many years. So...going on that stark and evident reality, what else do you expect to unfold as that lazily trudges along? The rest of the world is not going to be put on hold as that plays out....economics be damned. The money, firepower, and natural resources to run the war machines will be made available if need be...make no mistake about that.
So far you're just not convincing me at all of how out of touch with reality I am.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I don't think there is a chance in hell of the US actually invading Iran for an occupation.
The Iranian military has well over a half million active members.
The US isn't stupid.
I'm just providing you that article on the grounds that your reticence to even discuss an invasion makes me think you believe that Mr. Obama wouldn't dare to even involve himself in a skirmish with Iran.
And we know that assumption is just flat out wrong.
So what do YOU see happening?
Lets start with the assumption that Israel begins with tactical strikes against Iranian fuel processing facilities.
ha the half million man farmer army isnt what I'm afraid of. they would be taken out in a matter of weeks.
its the lessons learned from Iraq. no need to kick another hornets nest. its a waste of time, money, and lives.
and I dont see much happening more then bombs dropped on nuke sites. it might be similar to the no fly zones we had for Saddam in the 90s. Iran would be powerless to do anything and bombing their nukes sites may not stop them from create a nuke, but it might set them back another 10 years
Yes but you're forgetting Obama's tenacious position on fighting terrorism, and the reason why terrorists are, by and large, pissed off in the first place.
I'm not sure you've connected all the dots yet. All roads lead back to Israel, and what is happening there first.
If Obama is able to coerce Israel to change it's philosophy, it will be a very convincing and crucial first step. So far that seems to be a very unlikely reality (see AIPAC), that will require many years. So...going on that stark and evident reality, what else do you expect to unfold as that lazily trudges along? The rest of the world is not going to be put on hold as that plays out....economics be damned. The money, firepower, and natural resources to run the war machines will be made available if need be...make no mistake about that.
So far you're just not convincing me at all of how out of touch with reality I am.
well that because you think the world revolves around Israel. I'm sorry, I clearly stated my case and you continue to reply back with vagueness
well that because you think the world revolves around Israel. I'm sorry, I clearly stated my case and you continue to reply back with vagueness
"connect the dots"
"all roads lead to Israel"
"clock is ticking"
yea...
rock solid case you make...
Time is a factor, and all paths of decision making ultimately do lead back to Israel.
There's no question about it.
If you claim to know more about the topic than I do, than you already undoubtedly know the Israel/Palestinian issue is one of, if not the biggest reasons the Arab world harbors ongoing resentment. It's a catalyst like no other.
Following the current trends, as I've pointed out earlier, the existing mindset will not resolve anything, be it 5, 10, 20, 100+ years from now.
The eventuality is that Iran will be bombed into submission just like Iraq was (could be a matter of few or 50 years from now), and forces will have to move in to finish the job of restructuring the place from top to bottom, unless of course Iran no longer has a valid reason to be extremely critical of Israel and their radical Zionist policies (as this is all they talk about), and the US by proxy through their unconditional support of Israel. This can only achieved firstly in Israel itself with regards to the current state of Zionism, and how it directly relates to their immediate surroundings (read: Palestinians).
The bottom line is (inevitably)...we have to figure out how, and learn how to get along with these people. Threatening to kill them, and giving them further ultimatums, is not going to accomplish anything to this effect, only the exact opposite.
The war on terrorism still continues, same as before, just with a different, seemingly more moderate, and charismatic face.
Can Obama accomplish peace in Israel in such a short time? I'm hopeful, but nowhere near convinced just yet.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yeah, you're hopeful. How would you justify your existence if it wasn't defined in the fight against "Zionism" and it's worldwide conspiracy to enslave us all?
We'll see what happens in Iran. Something tells me -- maybe it's common sense -- that not all international negotiations happen out in the open and between the two countries engaged in those negotiations. It may not be happening right at this moment, but I don't think it's out of the realm of reasoned thought for an Obama administration to start back-channel talks with Iran, that way both nations can play to fuck-those-guys crowds back home.
I've got a better idea and apparently it would end all this fuss: Let's just nuke Israel.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Yeah, you're hopeful. How would you justify your existence if it wasn't defined in the fight against "Zionism" and it's worldwide conspiracy to enslave us all?
We'll see what happens in Iran. Something tells me -- maybe it's common sense -- that not all international negotiations happen out in the open and between the two countries engaged in those negotiations. It may not be happening right at this moment, but I don't think it's out of the realm of reasoned thought for an Obama administration to start back-channel talks with Iran, that way both nations can play to fuck-those-guys crowds back home.
I've got a better idea and apparently it would end all this fuss: Let's just nuke Israel.
Nuke Israel...yeah nice. Think much?
You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this game. One side has to be significantly restructured, be it Israel or Iran, and like minded. I'm just telling you what the problem is and why. Is that such a bad thing?
Is Obama going to redo Israel in a few years, or even 8 years? Two state solution is the question of the day. It's step #1 towards progress.
That's the question. You cannot circumvent this reality and claim moral high ground...not when you consider Iran (and the Arab world) and how they feel about it also.
One path escalates the conflict...the other moves towards defusing it by choosing the humanitarian approach.
It's not too complicated.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this game. One side has to be significantly restructured, be it Israel or Iran, and like minded. I'm just telling you what the problem is and why. Is that such a bad thing?
That's not the problem. Lemme ask you this: You really believe that all the problems Iran has with the U.S. and Israel would disappear if Israel was restructured? This isn't a zero-sum game.
Is Obama going to redo Israel in a few years, or even 8 years? Two state solution is the question of the day. It's step #1 towards progress.
Sure, except neither side seems to be able to stomach it and I'm not sure how the world would divvy up Jerusalem. I don't think the UN would want to run the city and I'm sure neither Jews nor Palestinians want the other side to have control. But I see where you're going with it and I would like it to happen too.
That's the question. You cannot circumvent this reality and claim moral high ground...not when you consider Iran (and the Arab world) and how they feel about it also.
Except, again, I don't think it would matter in the end. If it's not Israel, it will be something else. When hard-liners don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist, only a non-existent Israel is palatable.
One path escalates the conflict...the other moves towards defusing it by choosing the humanitarian approach.
It's not too complicated.
Actually it's a lot more complicated than you make it sound. These aren't two assholes -- one in Canada and one in Illinois -- trying to make this work. These are people with prejudices that predate Christianity dealing with each other. It's pretty damned complicated. Doesn't mean it's not worth a shot, but it also doesn't mean it's as simple as drawing a line of demarcation through Israel.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
then you have no idea what current path the US is on. the path has changed since 2003 in case you havent noticed. which obviously you havent cuz you seem to think its 2003. for example....
Iraq war was unpopular, unnecessary, and too expensive.
USA has way bigger issues to deal with then Iran. namely the economy.
and I love how you people love to slam Obama for voting to "fund the war". he clearly stated his position about Iraq many times. voting against the funding bill would only put our soldiers in danger.
Didn't Obama used say a few years ago he and Bush were on the same page as to Iraq?
edit: the actual quote was "There's not much difference between my position [on Iraq] and George Bush's at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." July 2004
And we know his CoS supported the invasion from the start as did Hilary...is ther anyone in his administration that opposed the war and invasion???
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
That's not the problem. Lemme ask you this: You really believe that all the problems Iran has with the U.S. and Israel would disappear if Israel was restructured? This isn't a zero-sum game.
Sure, except neither side seems to be able to stomach it and I'm not sure how the world would divvy up Jerusalem. I don't think the UN would want to run the city and I'm sure neither Jews nor Palestinians want the other side to have control. But I see where you're going with it and I would like it to happen too.
Except, again, I don't think it would matter in the end. If it's not Israel, it will be something else. When hard-liners don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist, only a non-existent Israel is palatable.
Actually it's a lot more complicated than you make it sound. These aren't two assholes -- one in Canada and one in Illinois -- trying to make this work. These are people with prejudices that predate Christianity dealing with each other. It's pretty damned complicated. Doesn't mean it's not worth a shot, but it also doesn't mean it's as simple as drawing a line of demarcation through Israel.
Actually I agree with everything you just said. I thought you were implying my solution was to nuke Israel. I may have misread your post.
I don't think drawing a new line in Israel will solve the problem outright, I just don't think it's possible to not go the two state route, and expect to open new dialogues and make any significant headway in getting along with this vastly different culture. I guess one could say the buck stops at Iran.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
ha the half million man farmer army isnt what I'm afraid of. they would be taken out in a matter of weeks.
its the lessons learned from Iraq. no need to kick another hornets nest. its a waste of time, money, and lives.
and I dont see much happening more then bombs dropped on nuke sites. it might be similar to the no fly zones we had for Saddam in the 90s. Iran would be powerless to do anything and bombing their nukes sites may not stop them from create a nuke, but it might set them back another 10 years
It would also be an act of aggression towards a sovereign nation.
I wonder if we'd use DU rounds and cluster vbombs like usual to terrorize and kill innocents long after the fact?
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
I think a lot of people are confused because most people on the left voted for Obama, as he was further left than McCain, but that doesn't mean that most people that voted for Obama are leftist. That's what annoys me about the left... at least the folks on the right admit that most people don't agree with them and are honest about the fact that they just don't care and think they know better. The people on the left seem prone to believing that everyone is secretly in agreement with them and either hides it or just needs a proper "Education" to be shown how wrong they are and how correct and superior the left is. It's annoyingly condescending.
Comments
I am thinking about it from Iran's point of view. thats why they are telling the world they are moving forward with a nuke program....they know America doesnt have the means or the will to invade or occupy them. yet you think its inevitable and imminent.
So their existing nuclear reactors get bombed, as they won't stop. I'm sure they have no idea how to hide anything after that point of aggression takes place. I imagine someone will invent psychic munitions, and the problem will solve itself by default
cool..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I dont want to put words in your mouth. hopefully you wont give some abstract answer and one liner.
just so we are clear. you think America will invade and occupy Iran in the coming months?
I take it back. looks like they are much closer to a nuke. Roland, I'll guess you are in the camp that believe they only plan to use it for energy?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_nuclear
TEHRAN, Iran – Iran now has more than 5,000 centrifuges operating and enriching uranium at the country's central plant, its nuclear chief said Wednesday, in the country's latest defiance of U.N. demands to halt its controversial program.
Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said Iran will continue to install centrifuges and enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel for the country's future nuclear power plants. The number of centrifuges is up sharply from the 4,000 Iran said were running in August at the plant in the central Iranian city of Natanz.
Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel. Further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons.
The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the claim and insists it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce reactor fuel.
"At this point, more than 5,000 centrifuges are operating in Natanz and enriching uranium," said Aghazadeh, who is head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. He spoke to reporters during an exhibition of Iranian nuclear achievements at Tehran University.
The United Nations Security Council has already imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran for its refusal to freeze the uranium enrichment program.
Flaunting Iran's defiance, Aghazadeh said the country will never suspend enrichment. "Suspension has not been defined in our lexicon," he added.
During the enrichment process, uranium gas is spun in a series of centrifuges known as "cascades" to purify it. Lower levels of enrichment produce reactor fuel but higher grades can build a weapon.
At the exhibition, Iran for the first time put on public display one of its P-1 centrifuges and officials at the exhibition explained various parts of machine to visitors.
The P-1 centrifuge is the workhorse of Iran's enrichment program. It's run in cascades of 164 machines.
In February, Iranian officials confirmed that they have started using the IR-2 centrifuge, which can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate of P-1.
Iran has said it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that will ultimately involve 54,000 centrifuges.
In its latest report on Iran last month, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said that Tehran had not significantly expanded full or partial operation of nearly 4,000 centrifuges at its cavernous underground facility at Natanz, a city about 300 miles (500 kilometers) south of Tehran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said the Islamic Republic was installing, or preparing to install, thousands more of the machines that spin uranium gas to enrich it — with the target of 9,000 centrifuges by next year.
IAEA officials could not be immediately reached for a comment on Aghazadeh's claim Wednesday.
Aghazadeh said Iran has also made "good progress" in constructing a 40 Megawatt heavy-water reactor near Arak in central Iran. "The heavy water plant is experiencing a production beyond its capacity," he said without elaborating.
The West has repeatedly called on Iran to stop construction of the reactor, fearing it could be used as a second track toward building a warhead.
When it is finished, the Arak reactor could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon each year, experts have said.
Aghazadeh also claimed Iran has conducted research on nuclear fusion — allegedly another one of its "priorities" — but didn't provide more details on the research. "It started long ago," he said.
Nuclear fusion is an energy producing process which naturally takes place in the sun and stars. Scientists have long sought a simple way to produce fusion in hopes of harnessing it as an energy source.
Also Wednesday, Iranian state television reported that the country successfully launched a second rocket into space, following up on the first such launch in February.
The rocket, entitled "Kavoshgar 2" or Explorer 2, made it to the lower reaches of space and returned to earth 40 minutes later on a parachute. It wasn't clear when the launch took place.
Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Israel Warned Not to Attack Iran Until Obama Takes Office
Tim McGirk
Time Magazine
November 25, 2008
U.S. officials have asked Israel to refrain from launching any major military action in the region during the waning days of the Bush presidency, Israeli sources have told TIME. Previously, some Israeli military officials had hinted to the media that if Israel were to carry out its threats to strike at Iranian nuclear installations, it might do so before Barack Obama enters the White House in January. But now a Defense Ministry official says, “We have been warned off.”
The call for restraint was relayed to Israeli officials by senior U.S. counterparts, TIME’s sources say, and it is likely to be reinforced during Monday’s valedictory meeting in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George W. Bush. (See pictures of President Bush in the Middle East.)
Washington’s concerns are not limited to the possibility of Israel attacking Iran, the sources say; U.S. officials have also cautioned Israelis against launching a ground assault inside the besieged Palestinian territory of Gaza in a bid to stop militants there from firing rockets into southern Israel. Bush Administration officials warn that such an attack could cost many lives and jeopardize the painstaking, thus far futile efforts of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
You do know that if (when) Israel attacks,
the US will "support" her.
Right?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm in that camp too.
What makes you think it is NOT intended for power plants?
Bigotry?
Constant bombardment with high level US propaganda?
Or maybe you have some legitimate source of news regarding HIGH LEVEL enrichment?
So far, EVERY SINGLE IAEA REPORT HAS CONSISTENTLY PROVEN ENRICHMENT TO BE WELL UNDER 5% -- a range suitable EXCLUSIVELY FOR USE AS A POWER SOURCE.
I have pulled up these official IAEA reports time and time again.
What source do you have to suggest anything different?
All your article says is that they are ramping up low-level enrichment production.
Something you would start doing if you were serious about supplying your country with nuclear power.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It's up to the US and Israel as far as the time frame is concerned. It is imminent on the current path.
The notion of dominating a country such as Iran at arms length is a somewhat of a unrealistic one.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
ah, the UN wants enrichment to stop, not just the US. did you even read the article?
Flaunting Iran's defiance, Aghazadeh said the country will never suspend enrichment. "Suspension has not been defined in our lexicon," he added.
Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel. Further enrichment makes it suitable for use in nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said the Islamic Republic was installing, or preparing to install, thousands more of the machines that spin uranium gas to enrich it — with the target of 9,000 centrifuges by next year.
Also Wednesday, Iranian state television reported that the country successfully launched a second rocket into space, following up on the first such launch in February.
The rocket, entitled "Kavoshgar 2" or Explorer 2, made it to the lower reaches of space and returned to earth 40 minutes later on a parachute. It wasn't clear when the launch took place.
Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
wow ok so you think an invasion and occupation of Iran is IMMINENT. ok. all this with a new liberal president who was against the Iraq war, has an economic crisis to deal with, 2 wars to continue and try end, is magically going to start a war with one of the biggest countries in the middle east. gotcha.
up up down down left left left a b a b select start.
there is a HUGE difference from dropping a few bombs from afar and all out invasion AND occupation.
You do know that..
Right?
It is is imminent on the current path. Yes. Looking ahead and following existing (and past) trends is somewhat of requirement in this discussion.
If you want to switch back to specifics over philosophies with regards to what are the right and wrong courses of action....go ahead. In any event I remember someone voting for funding the war in Iraq a few times despite saying he was against it. I like to look at actions over words, as politicians do and say anything to get votes. Everyone knows that.
Follow the trend. Look at the game plan, and do some very simple calculations. Enter one war, overthrow the political structure, exit, enter another war....repeat. I believe if you look into history, it will confirm.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The only factor is time.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
then you have no idea what current path the US is on. the path has changed since 2003 in case you havent noticed. which obviously you havent cuz you seem to think its 2003. for example....
Iraq war was unpopular, unnecessary, and too expensive.
USA has way bigger issues to deal with then Iran. namely the economy.
and I love how you people love to slam Obama for voting to "fund the war". he clearly stated his position about Iraq many times. voting against the funding bill would only put our soldiers in danger.
The path has changed since 2003. Has it? Really? I'm not seeing the "about face" angle you claim to see. It's a bit larger than what one president says they want, and what actually happens on the ground from those that advise him on what to do.
Advisers (military et all)...they do play a rather key part in the decision making process at the end of the day. One could say they really call the shots, and the President really just breaks/sells it to the public in their elected charismatic ways with a heaping helping hand from the media.
In any event Iraq has been restructured now. They can be gradually toned down, but I'd be extremely surprised (astonished) to see complete withdrawal, as that is not the way it's been observed the world around from a military involvement perspective.
The problem with Iran is that they are already privy to the game, and a much harder target to coerce into submission.
This is why no matter how many bombs you drop on Iran (short of a glass parking lot), they will resist harder and harder to the point the resistance factor will have to be scrubbed from the cracks and crevices by hand.
The clock is ticking...the ultimatum is in full swing. Stop unconditionally or else.
tick tock..
edit: or perhaps the "do this or else" rhetoric could be dropped altogether, and serious negotiations could begin with Iran on how to resolve the source of their dismay. This would, without question, however involve a two state solution between Israel and Palestine. Until that time....it just keeps on going despite what any politician says they want to do. Without seeing any actual results it's all just talk at this point.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
again, you are living in a reality created by you. you are completely ignoring the facts of the current political and economic climate of the united states.
we now have a president who did not support a war with Iraq yet he is going to invade and occupy Iran. sorry, no.
the United States is almost 6 years deep into a war that has cost way too many lives, money, and respect throughout the world. yet we are still going to do it again and invade and occupy Iran. sorry no.
we are knee deep in a recession and economic crisis not seen since the great depression yet we are going to launch a war with Iran that will cost hundreds of billions more. sorry no.
you love to keep referring back to the hardline talk the US has engaged in with Iran. well thats all it is, talk. both of our countries like to pretend we have the bigger dick. but actually, Obama has put the option of sitting down face to face with Iran. has Bush? no. that option was off the table. yet you claim we are on the same path. sorry no.
Yeah.
Whats your point?
All i can give you is a resounding "so what", or "who gives a fuck" in return.
If i recall, Iran would not be the first country in the region to repeatedly and continually violate either UN or IAEA mandates ... Israel ... cough ... cough.
SO.
So what.
The UN Security Council wants enrichment to stop.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has REPEATEDLY, CONSISTENTLY, and CONTINUES TO state that Iran is in compliance with IAEA requirements for PEACEFULL ENRICHMENT.
IAEA Board of Govenors Report on Ian - 11\15\2008
Now of COURSE, since the IAEA is under CONSTANT pressure from the WEST to find SOME reason to censure Iran, it has to REPEATEDLY come up with NEW MANDATES AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS for Iran.
So EVERY month, after they say Iran is in compliance with "non-diversion", they "ask" Iran to disclose 3 or 4 new items ... like all of its defense budget purchases, and a list of all of its defense industry contracts and such ...
So,
IS THE USA ACTIVELY DISCLOSING ITS DEFENSE CONTRACT SUPPLY LISTS TO THE IAEA?
HOW ABOUT ISRAEL?
ISRAEL WHO HAS BEEN IN DEFIANCE OF THE UN AND THE IAEA REGARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS.
Are you worried about that one?
Or just the evil arabs?
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Absolutely.
I don't think there is a chance in hell of the US actually invading Iran for an occupation.
The Iranian military has well over a half million active members.
The US isn't stupid.
I'm just providing you that article on the grounds that your reticence to even discuss an invasion makes me think you believe that Mr. Obama wouldn't dare to even involve himself in a skirmish with Iran.
And we know that assumption is just flat out wrong.
So what do YOU see happening?
Lets start with the assumption that Israel begins with tactical strikes against Iranian fuel processing facilities.
What happens next?
Will Hillary scream to"totally obliterate them" if they fight back?
What would be the justification?
A UN Mandate?
That would be funny if it wasn't just sick.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you're right. I should give Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, the peace loving tolerant people that they are, much more credit.
as long as Iran is in compliance with the IAEA, I have no problem with what they are doing. unfortunately I think Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are lying pieces of scum that would have no problem firing a nuclear missle at Israel or the US.
and no, I don't like that Israel or US have nukes. or the several other countries around the world that have them. fuck it, lets all have them!
Yes but you're forgetting Obama's tenacious position on fighting terrorism, and the reason why terrorists are, by and large, pissed off in the first place.
I'm not sure you've connected all the dots yet. All roads lead back to Israel, and what is happening there first.
If Obama is able to coerce Israel to change it's philosophy, it will be a very convincing and crucial first step. So far that seems to be a very unlikely reality (see AIPAC), that will require many years. So...going on that stark and evident reality, what else do you expect to unfold as that lazily trudges along? The rest of the world is not going to be put on hold as that plays out....economics be damned. The money, firepower, and natural resources to run the war machines will be made available if need be...make no mistake about that.
So far you're just not convincing me at all of how out of touch with reality I am.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
ha the half million man farmer army isnt what I'm afraid of. they would be taken out in a matter of weeks.
its the lessons learned from Iraq. no need to kick another hornets nest. its a waste of time, money, and lives.
and I dont see much happening more then bombs dropped on nuke sites. it might be similar to the no fly zones we had for Saddam in the 90s. Iran would be powerless to do anything and bombing their nukes sites may not stop them from create a nuke, but it might set them back another 10 years
well that because you think the world revolves around Israel. I'm sorry, I clearly stated my case and you continue to reply back with vagueness
"connect the dots"
"all roads lead to Israel"
"clock is ticking"
yea...
rock solid case you make...
Time is a factor, and all paths of decision making ultimately do lead back to Israel.
There's no question about it.
If you claim to know more about the topic than I do, than you already undoubtedly know the Israel/Palestinian issue is one of, if not the biggest reasons the Arab world harbors ongoing resentment. It's a catalyst like no other.
Following the current trends, as I've pointed out earlier, the existing mindset will not resolve anything, be it 5, 10, 20, 100+ years from now.
The eventuality is that Iran will be bombed into submission just like Iraq was (could be a matter of few or 50 years from now), and forces will have to move in to finish the job of restructuring the place from top to bottom, unless of course Iran no longer has a valid reason to be extremely critical of Israel and their radical Zionist policies (as this is all they talk about), and the US by proxy through their unconditional support of Israel. This can only achieved firstly in Israel itself with regards to the current state of Zionism, and how it directly relates to their immediate surroundings (read: Palestinians).
The bottom line is (inevitably)...we have to figure out how, and learn how to get along with these people. Threatening to kill them, and giving them further ultimatums, is not going to accomplish anything to this effect, only the exact opposite.
The war on terrorism still continues, same as before, just with a different, seemingly more moderate, and charismatic face.
Can Obama accomplish peace in Israel in such a short time? I'm hopeful, but nowhere near convinced just yet.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
We'll see what happens in Iran. Something tells me -- maybe it's common sense -- that not all international negotiations happen out in the open and between the two countries engaged in those negotiations. It may not be happening right at this moment, but I don't think it's out of the realm of reasoned thought for an Obama administration to start back-channel talks with Iran, that way both nations can play to fuck-those-guys crowds back home.
I've got a better idea and apparently it would end all this fuss: Let's just nuke Israel.
Nuke Israel...yeah nice. Think much?
You can't have your cake and eat it too, in this game. One side has to be significantly restructured, be it Israel or Iran, and like minded. I'm just telling you what the problem is and why. Is that such a bad thing?
Is Obama going to redo Israel in a few years, or even 8 years? Two state solution is the question of the day. It's step #1 towards progress.
That's the question. You cannot circumvent this reality and claim moral high ground...not when you consider Iran (and the Arab world) and how they feel about it also.
One path escalates the conflict...the other moves towards defusing it by choosing the humanitarian approach.
It's not too complicated.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's not the problem. Lemme ask you this: You really believe that all the problems Iran has with the U.S. and Israel would disappear if Israel was restructured? This isn't a zero-sum game.
Sure, except neither side seems to be able to stomach it and I'm not sure how the world would divvy up Jerusalem. I don't think the UN would want to run the city and I'm sure neither Jews nor Palestinians want the other side to have control. But I see where you're going with it and I would like it to happen too.
Except, again, I don't think it would matter in the end. If it's not Israel, it will be something else. When hard-liners don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist, only a non-existent Israel is palatable.
Actually it's a lot more complicated than you make it sound. These aren't two assholes -- one in Canada and one in Illinois -- trying to make this work. These are people with prejudices that predate Christianity dealing with each other. It's pretty damned complicated. Doesn't mean it's not worth a shot, but it also doesn't mean it's as simple as drawing a line of demarcation through Israel.
Didn't Obama used say a few years ago he and Bush were on the same page as to Iraq?
edit: the actual quote was "There's not much difference between my position [on Iraq] and George Bush's at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." July 2004
And we know his CoS supported the invasion from the start as did Hilary...is ther anyone in his administration that opposed the war and invasion???
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
what would ever make you think that the #1 most liberal senator would govern from the right?
Actually I agree with everything you just said. I thought you were implying my solution was to nuke Israel. I may have misread your post.
I don't think drawing a new line in Israel will solve the problem outright, I just don't think it's possible to not go the two state route, and expect to open new dialogues and make any significant headway in getting along with this vastly different culture. I guess one could say the buck stops at Iran.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It would also be an act of aggression towards a sovereign nation.
I wonder if we'd use DU rounds and cluster vbombs like usual to terrorize and kill innocents long after the fact?
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Do I get a cut if you won the bet then?
I think a lot of people are confused because most people on the left voted for Obama, as he was further left than McCain, but that doesn't mean that most people that voted for Obama are leftist. That's what annoys me about the left... at least the folks on the right admit that most people don't agree with them and are honest about the fact that they just don't care and think they know better. The people on the left seem prone to believing that everyone is secretly in agreement with them and either hides it or just needs a proper "Education" to be shown how wrong they are and how correct and superior the left is. It's annoyingly condescending.