Powell Says Iran Is Pursuing Bomb

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

don't know the details but I think it would be very irresponsible to not take the threat seriously.

I agree. I don't agree that pre-emptive invasion should be on the short list of options to respond to that threat.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

don't know the details but I think it would be very irresponsible to not take the threat seriously.

I agree. I don't agree that pre-emptive invasion should be on the short list of options to respond to that threat.

Not yet.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

don't know the details but I think it would be very irresponsible to not take the threat seriously.

I agree. I don't agree that pre-emptive invasion should be on the short list of options to respond to that threat.

OK tell us what should be done.

[PhillyKev 0]

Sanctions and inspections seeemed to work pretty well in Iraq. After all, there weren't any WMD. The curent party line to justify the war in Iraq is because Husseing was a brutal dictator. That's not true about Iran. If you're going to try and justify a war in Iran based on the false pretenses used to justify the one in Iraq, better come up with a new "reason".

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Sanctions and inspections seeemed to work pretty well in Iraq. After all, there weren't any WMD. The curent party line to justify the war in Iraq is because Husseing was a brutal dictator. That's not true about Iran. If you're going to try and justify a war in Iran based on the false pretenses used to justify the one in Iraq, better come up with a new "reason".

Oh yeah, sanctions worked Sooooo well in Iraq. In fact they worked so well that many in the UN got filthy rich while Iraqi children starved and went without medicine. Suppose Iran just says "Go ahead and impose sanctions, we don't care. As long as there are sanctions, there will be no oil."

What are you suggesting we do when that happens?

[billvon 3,120]

>What's your point?

That you would push for an invasion of a country that was no immediate threat to us, but be just fine not invading a country that _was_ a massive threat to us. Which is fine - but directly contradicts your assertion that we must pre-emptively invade countries that threaten us. It would be more accurate to say that we pre-emptively invade countries that do NOT threaten us; there is little consequence to us then.

In other words, we're only going to kick people's butts if they're a lot weaker than we are. The stronger tyrants we respect. Which is an excellent reason for North Korea, Iran et al to develop nuclear weapons as fast as they possibly can; that will deter an invasion of the US, who thus far has shown they will only invade countries that DON'T have WMD's.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Oh yeah, sanctions worked Sooooo well in Iraq.

They sure did. Unless you know about some secret WMD that were found.

You're confusing sanctions with the Oil for Food program. As far as Iran saying they don't care...guess what....they do and will. Yeah, they're going to stop selling oil to spite us, and won't need to buy anything from any other country

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh yeah, sanctions worked Sooooo well in Iraq.

They sure did. Unless you know about some secret WMD that were found.

You're confusing sanctions with the Oil for Food program. As far as Iran saying they don't care...guess what....they do and will. Yeah, they're going to stop selling oil to spite us, and won't need to buy anything from any other country

How do you propose to enforce sanctions when there are so many countries that cannot survive without Iranian Oil? They are the ones who will simply refuse to honor sanctions because they will say Iran poses no risk to them. US imposed sanctions on Iran will not work.

[PhillyKev 0]

There's no such thing as "Iranian Oil". Iran sell their oil to OPEC. Countries that buy oil from OPEC will continue to. The supply will be reduced and prices will rise. Now if you want to invade them to keep the price of oil down, that I can understand. It's completely evil to kill thousands of people for money, IMO, but I could understand greed as a motivation. What is your motivation to want to invade another country and kill a bunch of people when it is not necessary?

[Zep 0]

Quote

>Let all the goody goodies that disagreed with Bush's policys
>see first hand what carrnage iresponsible governments can cause

Well, we're up to 14,000 innocent people dead in Iraq and 1200 US troops who will never come home - so we've actually already seen what kind of carnage irresponsible governments can cause.

I feel you are twisting my words. I'm talking about an Irainian government.
Taking cheap shots does not become you.

Gone fishing

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

What is your motivation to want to invade another country and kill a bunch of people when it is not necessary?

Where did I say we should invade? I've simply said we need to prevent them from having nukes and I've asked you how you would propose we do that. If Iran just shuts down their oil wells, it will have a devestating effect on the world. I doubt many countries would support sanctions against Iraq and even if they did, we would end up with another UN bribery scandal which the UN doesn't seem to care about.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>We are tlaking about new missle technology for nukes . . .

Now we are. After we invade you'll be telling us "I never said it was about the missiles, it was about liberating the people of Iran! And how do you know that in ten years they wouldn't have developed ICBM's?"

Soon we will be invading Russia as well...they announced yesterday that they are developing a new missle/nuke the world has never seen before. It will make the missle shield useless.

The missile shield is already useless. See www.sciam.com, latest print issue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok...so why aren't we invading Iran?

We might eventually if they keep up with their intimidation and defiance. What's your point?

Intimidation of whom? Defiance of whom?

You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to have missile capability to deliver nuclear weapons? You think it's in the best interest of the world for Iran to develop nukes at all given that they'd gladly share them with terrorists?

Hey what are you talking about? You mean you don't trust the Iranians with nuclear weapons? Why? Just because they sponsor groups like Hamas? I sure they will act responsible and not violate the UN rules. They might even begin to like the US if we just let them have their way.

Why should anyone trust the US with nukular weapons when the US sponsored groups like the Contras, the Muhajadeen, Saddam Hussein until 1991, and enormous numbers of US citizens gave money to the IRA?

Double standard?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Where did I say we should invade? I've simply said we need to prevent them from having nukes

Ok then, how do we prevent that? Why don't you tell us?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Where did I say we should invade? I've simply said we need to prevent them from having nukes

Ok then, how do we prevent that? Why don't you tell us?

That's the question I've been asking. How come nobody on the left can give me an answer? You guys say invading or wiping out a reactor will just make them hate us more and is morally wrong, so I want to hear your suggestions.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

That's the question I've been asking. How come nobody on the left can give me an answer? You guys say invading or wiping out a reactor will just make them hate us more and is morally wrong, so I want to hear your suggestions.

So you are saying we should invade?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

That's the question I've been asking. How come nobody on the left can give me an answer? You guys say invading or wiping out a reactor will just make them hate us more and is morally wrong, so I want to hear your suggestions.

So you are saying we should invade?

I thought I made myself pretty clear.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

So you are saying we should invade?

I thought I made myself pretty clear.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So you are saying we should invade?

I thought I made myself pretty clear.

You said "where did I say we should invade" then hinted that those on the left were wrong for not wanting to bomb/invade....so, my guess is you want to invade.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you are saying we should invade?

I thought I made myself pretty clear.

You said "where did I say we should invade" then hinted that those on the left were wrong for not wanting to bomb/invade....so, my guess is you want to invade.

Then you would be wrong. I took no position at all. I simply asked a question. What do you suggest we do if Iran ignores the UN and goes ahead and develops nukes? Pretty simple question I thought. Perhaps not.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I thought I made myself pretty clear.

Quote

I took no position at all.

And ya wonder how I could have been confused?

So my quesiton to you - what is your position on it? Invade now??? Invade later???

Quote

What do you suggest we do if Iran ignores the UN and goes ahead and develops nukes?

Well, if N Korea is an example, we won't do anything. Countries have realized that if they don't want to be illegally invaded by us they need to have nukes. We have forced the issue. Karma is a bitch, no? Why can't they have nukes? Because they may have financial support to a terrorist organization? Well, we have done that in this country and we have nukes. Our own citizens blow up buildings in this country, so we have some radicals that could get a WMD as well, right? Why can we have nukes, Russia can have nukes, Israel can have nukes, and other countries can not? Yes, I know the history of Iran - but I know ours as well. Do I want them to have nukes? Nope, not really. Do I want to do a pre-emptive strike on them because someone thinks they may be doing something in secret? Nope.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Apparently he thinks the only choice available is to either hide under a pile of coats or invade - so much for the creativity of the left. They do the tough stuff by suggesting "must be other alternatives". Actually providing that alternative is obvious beneath them.

Well, instead of being critical - why don't you come up with something creative and educate us all on what should be done.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I thought I made myself pretty clear.

Quote

I took no position at all.

And ya wonder how I could have been confused?

So my quesiton to you - what is your position on it? Invade now??? Invade later???

Quote

What do you suggest we do if Iran ignores the UN and goes ahead and develops nukes?

Well, if N Korea is an example, we won't do anything. Countries have realized that if they don't want to be illegally invaded by us they need to have nukes. We have forced the issue. Karma is a bitch, no? Why can't they have nukes? Because they may have financial support to a terrorist organization? Well, we have done that in this country and we have nukes. Our own citizens blow up buildings in this country, so we have some radicals that could get a WMD as well, right? Why can we have nukes, Russia can have nukes, Israel can have nukes, and other countries can not? Yes, I know the history of Iran - but I know ours as well. Do I want them to have nukes? Nope, not really. Do I want to do a pre-emptive strike on them because someone thinks they may be doing something in secret? Nope.

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let them stockpile nukes?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let them stockpile nukes?

Well, that is rather untrusting of the agreement isn't it? Why did we ever believe Japan wouldn't go back on their word after WWII? It must be nice to have that view of the future that the rest of us lack. Can you help me out and let me know the lotto numbers for this weekend? I think its about 100million.

I saw we go with the agreement for now.

Now - what was your position? What do you think we should do?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Then what do you suggest we do? Just let them stockpile nukes?

Well, that is rather untrusting of the agreement isn't it? Why did we ever believe Japan wouldn't go back on their word after WWII? It must be nice to have that view of the future that the rest of us lack. Can you help me out and let me know the lotto numbers for this weekend? I think its about 100million.

I saw we go with the agreement for now.

Now - what was your position? What do you think we should do?

I don't know, thats why I'm asking you. What do you think we should do if Iran violates the agreement?