Nuclear Iran is now the world's #1 problem

[Undertoad]

This Washingtion Post lead editorial makes clear that Iran's nuclear interest is in bomb-making, not power generation.

They wrote the editorial because yesterday Iran resumed Uranium enrichment, ending a diplomatic solution that was pressed by England, France, and Germany.

Basically, Europe said to Iran, "If you stop all uranium enrichment, and allow UN inspections, we will give you enough radioactive fuel to operate nuclear power plants."

Iran's answer is to say no, and restart enrichment. The next step is at the UN Security Council.

[Happy Monkey]

My guess: Iran and N. Korea are going to go full speed ahead on nukes, figuring that the US can only go after one of them, if even that, due to our Iraq war.

[tw]

This was posted previously in direct response to UT's topmost post:
Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.

Meanwhile Iran is doing just that - building WMDs because George Jr all but said we will invade Iran. And yet George Jr calls the Iranian leader evil for only doing what he must do for his country.

You tell me. Is that Iranian leader evil or is he good? Because he actually does what Saddam only threatened, then does this Iranian leader deserve to be attacked, captured, and put on trial like Saddam for using WMDs on invading American troops? You tell me where morality lies? Who then is the good and who then is the evil one?

Of couse Iran is building nuclear weapons or other WMDs. Any honest and patriotic leader working for his people must do same if threatened as George Jr has the Iranian people.

[richlevy]

At this point, it appears Washington is going to give India a pass on having to sign the non-proliferation treaty. This is mostly because Pakistan won't sign it either.

Since we value India as a democracy in it's region, we will probably not hold sanctions against them.

If we refuse to sanction Pakistan and India, who have performed nuclear tests (Israel has not and is not officially a nuclear power), North Korea and Iran can make the valid claim that they are being treated differently from 'friends' of the US.

[Undertoad]

Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.

Conventional Iranian weaponry, if you take seriously the Pentagon's press conference today in which they announced that a crapload of weapons are coming over the Iranian border.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.

Conventional Iranian weaponry, if you take seriously the Pentagon's press conference today in which they announced that a crapload of weapons are coming over the Iranian border.

Yeah, but nuclear bombs are so much more fun!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.

There's stopped, and then there's stopped. I doubt Iran relishes the idea of becoming another battleground.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq. Therefore, the US can already be stopped using conventional weaponry.

That is your bias. Show me where said "the US is losing the war in Iraq". You have assumed a binary interpretation of what I have posted.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Conventional Iranian[ weaponry, if you take seriously the Pentagon's press conference today in which they announced that a crapload of weapons are coming over the Iranian border.

Using your same logic, the US was attacking Britain because most IRA weapons were obtained from American support. Selecting a Pentagon suspicion as if it were fact is again trying to interpret everything in 'Black and White'.

Need we return to Pentagon suspicions 30 years ago? Once numbers were summed, then we had killed everyone in N Vietnam three times over. The suspicion is interesting. It also forgets to mention weapons coming from Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Remember those high explosives left unguarded during the invasion? High explosives originally purchased over a decade ago to build a nuclear bomb? Why do they not mention all those munitions? I suppose all those unguarded and now missing explosives, carefully tagged by UN inspectors, and not guarded by US soldiers, suddenly don't exist? It’s called propaganda when they fail to mention all the sources of munitions. Remember who shorted the US invasion of troops before you cast all blame on Iran.

We would not be in this mess if a president was honest. Let's remember which one of us bought previous administration spin even about aluminum tubes and other WMD lies. It's called first looking at the bigger picture - and other simpler facts such as the numbers. That isolated Pentagon briefing is Pentagon suspicion. Hell, Pentagon officials cannot even identify who the enemy is, how large their numbers, what inspires them, how insurgent got back into Fallujah, or even why the country is in expanding turmoil. There are no large number of foreigners as some Pentagon officials once claimed.

Suddenly this one Pentagon briefing is a god-like fact? I suspect not. Just another suspicion probably based upon intelligence estimates ... and hopefully not perverted by White House propaganda. But then we can never be sure considering the reputation of this administration that has a long history of outright lying - be it welfare to drug companies and the cost of government medical benefits, social security, the $2billion from oil that was going to pay for this war, all the electricity in Iraq that does not exist, or even global warming. Its nothing more than Pentagon suspicion - from a source previously and repeatedly perverted by their boss' political and self serving agenda.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I don't recall ever being promised Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war. There was some optimistic talk about it, but promises? Nope.

There's fair criticism of the Bush Administration's actions, and there is unfair. TW's is fanatically, furiously, rabidly and voluminously unfair. TW, when it comes to Republicans you have no ethics -- only one of the most inflated senses of grievance I've ever seen.

[Happy Monkey]

I'm sure Congress is happy to know that the testimony before it was just a bit of optimistic talk.

What a wonderful excuse! "I never made any promises, that was just optimistic talk!" Is there anything that doesn't work for?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

So do you hear any wrath from Congress about that? The art of the possible, HM, the art of the possible.

[Griff]

mid-term elections

[Happy Monkey]

I never said Congress would actually complain about being lied to. That would be optimistic talk.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Basically, Europe said to Iran, "If you stop all uranium enrichment, and allow UN inspections, we will give you enough radioactive fuel to operate nuclear power plants."

Iran's answer is to say no, and restart enrichment. The next step is at the UN Security Council.

Well, we know where that will go. But playing the Devil's Advocate, perhaps Iran's government would rather have nuclear power in their own right than to be dependent on Europe, even for free.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Everyone agrees it's quite understandable. What gives the responsible people the sour stomachs and the night sweats is who the mullahs are in bed with.