Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

[MrBounce 0]

Quote

Iran: They have it. They claim they will use it. This is a very serious problem.

Not strictly true, they are claiming their right to develop nuclear technology. This is not about nuclear weapons, but about power politics. Iran wants to be a powerful local state and influence the region, it doesn't want America pissing with it and trying to start a "democratic" revolution or regime change. They've already experienced this before and aren't happy about it.

You absolutely do NOT develop nuclear weapons by shouting about it and telling people where to find your facilities. You keep it as quiet as you can until you explode a test warhead and go "oh well, you didn't know this, but we've now got nukes" - ref: India & Pakistan.

You do shout and point it out if you want the global heavy weights to pay attention to your country and give you some kind of benefit, even if they are all under the global media radar - ref: North Korea.

Ignore the media hype and the rhetoric and look at what everybody is *actually* doing. If Iran did actually start to develop nukes, they'd either be nuked by Israel or suffer tactical non-nuclear strikes by the US long before the had a weaponised nuclear delivery system. They know, the US knows it, everybody knows it, so they won't do it.

Instead, Iran wants influence in Iraq, the US doesn't want Iranian influence in Iraq. Both sides engage in public rhetoric, swearing name calling and general insults while privately engaging in heavy diplomacy and negotiations.

If the US does go to war with Iran, its because someone fucked up their politcal calculations.

Gavin

Gavin

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If you don't take it out and use it, its going to rust.

[billvon 3,088]

>the best course of action is....*drumroll*....USELESS UN INSPECTIONS AND SANCTIONS!

Nonsense! The best course is to:

1. Get incorrect intelligence
2. Sex it up so it looks like they have nukes
3. Invade
4. Lose 2500 US soldiers
5. Kill 100,000 Iranians (accidentally, of course)
6. Fail to find any nukes
7. Get stuck in Iran in a quagmire of epic proportions
8. Lament how it's all the democrats fault when things go to shit
9. Claim the war wasn't really about nukes, it was about liberating the people of Iran
10. When the civil war starts, declare victory

[warpedskydiver 0]

Hey Bill, then why did they choose to bury an entire Nuke research facility under the ground AFTER it was built?

Answer: to hide it from satellite imagery only they werent quick enough!

sources were DTMS channel and DIA

[billvon 3,088]

>then why dod they choose to bury an entire Nuke research facility
>under the ground AFTER it was built?

Oh, I don't know. Because we threaten to bomb them all the time, perhaps?

If you were designing a US research lab for MOX production, and someone threatened to bomb it, would you take security precautions?

[warpedskydiver 0]

burying it does NOTHING to protect it from BOMBING it only protects it from VIEWING

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

burying it does NOTHING to protect it from BOMBING it only protects it from VIEWING

That gets pretty high marks on the unintentional humor scale.

[JohnnyD 0]

Bill,
In english, can you give us your interpretation on where the Iranian nuclear program is currently and how long it will take them to make weapons grade material?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

burying it does NOTHING to protect it from BOMBING it only protects it from VIEWING

That gets pretty high marks on the unintentional humor scale.

Ummm you may want to actually know what youre talking about...get an account at Janes...ok?

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

burying it does NOTHING to protect it from BOMBING it only protects it from VIEWING

That gets pretty high marks on the unintentional humor scale.

Ummm you may want to actually know what youre talking about...get an account at Janes...ok?

This is one of the biggest turn offs of SC. Nobody gets the jokes. Lets face it, if you have to explain it, its just not funny anymore. Even worse is being called stupid by someone who didn't get the joke in the first place. Sheez.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Nope. Our feelings towards HIM changed. ... Then, after we pounded the shit out of his country, his feelings towards us changed.

So, you're saying that he didn't change his feelings towards us? Or wait, you agree with me that his feelings towards us DID change, but you wanted to make sure to blame the US for it?

Quote

If he hated us he wouldn't have asked permission of us before invading Kuwait. Sucks we gave him the go-ahead, eh?

I'd suggest you do more research. Without the "believe anything if it makes the US look bad" glasses on, of course.

Quote

Exactly. We know who's on our side, and who wants peace. Assholes. Don't they know they are either with us or against us? How dare they push diplomacy when violence will accomplish the same thing, but faster!

So, you're assuming that it is in China and Russia's best interest to have a peaceful and US friendly Iran? Really. I guess you also think that France and Germany didn't want the US to invade Iraq either time because they're pacifists and cared about the little children and it wasn't because of their contracts with the government or Iraq.

Some of you people are so focused on your US-centric conspiracy theories that you can't even see past our own country. Open your eyes.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,088]

>can you give us your interpretation on where the Iranian nuclear
> program is currently and how long it will take them to make
> weapons grade material?

They already have it; there are weapons designs that do not require 90-95% enrichment of uranium, and they have already enriched to at least 50%, per IAEA reports. (So have a great many other countries, since such low-enriched uranium is often used in reactors.) Enriching to 90-95% gets you a smaller, more effective weapon. More to the point, such highly enriched uranium (HEU) is more amenable to the construction of a gun-type bomb, the easiest type to build, and thus the most worrisome from a proliferation point of view.

Thus, many of the anti-proliferation efforts have concentrated on HEU, rather than LEU.

Plutonium is another issue. Most 'peaceful' uses of uranium (i.e. power reactors) generate a lot of plutonium. It must be separated from spent uranium fuel after use. It is less of a threat for terrorist proliferation, since it is much harder to build a good weapon from plutonium, due to the need for a separate neutron source. (Although you can still get a critical mass to explode without it, albeit at a greatly reduced yield.)

But where the current Iranian nuclear program is? I can't speak to that. After seeing how much we misinterpreted the information on the Iraq nuclear programs, I have little faith in any intelligence on Iran's nuclear programs. (Especially given that both the US and Iran have a vested interest in people believing they have a weapons program.)

[JohnnyD 0]

Thanks Bill!
I guess I was hoping against hope this would turn into a slam dunk type of a situation (irt intelligence), but it obviously is less than that.
I will continue to hope against hope that we learned our lesson with the last two invasions. I won't be holding my breath, just spending as much time as I can with my friends who are saying "Shit. Again? I just got back - for the second time".

[billvon 3,088]

>I'd suggest you do more research.

Is it your position that Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq, objected when Hussein asked if it was OK to invade Kuwait?

>Without the "believe anything if it makes the US look bad" glasses on, of course.

Again, a quick Google could resolve your confusion here.

>So, you're assuming that it is in China and Russia's best interest to have
>a peaceful and US friendly Iran?

It is in Russia and China's best interests to not have an unstable and fractured Middle East. When the US invades Middle Eastern countries, secterian violence erupts and oil flow drops way off. Hence it is to their advantage to avoid war. It is a sentiment I share, although for different reasons.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Is it your position that Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq, objected when Hussein asked if it was OK to invade Kuwait?

HAHAHA, what a cheap attempt to box in a response! Please tell me you're joking.

Everything I've read has said that the US took no position on Iraqi-Kuwaiti politics and that was said to Saddam. There are plenty of sources that state that he knew it wasn't approval and did it anyway. Even Tariq Aziz said that... YOU google THAT.

Is it YOUR position that Glaspie DID give the US's approval for Saddam to invade Kuwait?

Again... a quick search without the "believe anything if it makes the US look bad" glasses on again.

But sometimes I forget that you have exclusive access to "THE TRUTH" source for all events worldwide.

Quote

It is in Russia and China's best interests to not have an unstable and fractured Middle East.

Correct! It IS in their interest to have deals with countries either covertly or overtly to make sure they get what they need. It isn't just an unstable middle east that bothers them, it's having legitimate governments in place that won't exchange oil for AK-47's and nuclear secrets.

Quote

Hence it is to their advantage to avoid war.

Of course it is. War will disrupt their shady little plans... just like it did to France and Germany in Iraq.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,115]

Quote

Quote

Is it your position that Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq, objected when Hussein asked if it was OK to invade Kuwait?

HAHAHA, what a cheap attempt to box in a response! Please tell me you're joking.

Everything I've read has said that the US took no position on Iraqi-Kuwaiti politics and that was said to Saddam. There are plenty of sources that state that he knew it wasn't approval and did it anyway. Even Tariq Aziz said that... YOU google THAT.

.

How did "take no position" become Operation Desert Storm without a change of mind by the Bush (41) administration? Inquiring minds want to know.

...

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

[Trent 0]

Quote

How did "take no position" become Operation Desert Storm without a change of mind by the Bush (41) administration? Inquiring minds want to know.

From what I've read (besides the conspiracy nut sounding accounts), Glaspie seemed to have no credible reason to think that they'd invade. When they did, it was a surprise... and it also threatened Saudi Arabia.

You sure are clinging to me stating that Saddam changed his mind about us. At the lowest level, you can't even be honest enough that he did change his mind... regardless of the reason. I also never did state WHY he changed his mind. It's just you and Bill that want to make sure the US is blamed here... even though you'll never be able to prove anything.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,115]

Quote

Quote

How did "take no position" become Operation Desert Storm without a change of mind by the Bush (41) administration? Inquiring minds want to know.

From what I've read (besides the conspiracy nut sounding accounts), Glaspie seemed to have no credible reason to think that they'd invade. When they did, it was a surprise... and it also threatened Saudi Arabia.

You sure are clinging to me stating that Saddam changed his mind about us. At the lowest level, you can't even be honest enough that he did change his mind... regardless of the reason. I also never did state WHY he changed his mind. It's just you and Bill that want to make sure the US is blamed here... even though you'll never be able to prove anything.

You can do better than that, I'm sure.

...

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

[billvon 3,088]

>Everything I've read has said that the US took no position on Iraqi-Kuwaiti politics . . .

He ASKED us DIRECTLY if he could move against Kuwait. We said WE DIDN'T CARE if he did. He then invaded. If we truly didn't care, then why the hell did we attack him? If we really _did_ care, then we lied to him.

Try again.

>I forget that you have exclusive access to "THE TRUTH" source for all events worldwide.

Nope. I just listen to less spin. I prefer to hear what was actually said, not what FOX said about what Tariq Aziz said about what Saddam said about what Glaspie said.

>Is it YOUR position that Glaspie DID give the US's approval for
>Saddam to invade Kuwait?

What was actually said:

--------------------
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
-------------
In an interview after he invaded Kuwait:

Journalist- You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.
--------------

So she knew she had given him the go-ahead to attack Kuwait; she just didn't know he would want all of it.

> It IS in their interest to have deals with countries either covertly or
> overtly to make sure they get what they need.

Of course! In other words, they have the same goals we do.

>It isn't just an unstable middle east that bothers them, it's having
> legitimate governments in place that won't exchange oil for AK-47's
> and nuclear secrets.

They prefer having stable governments who make promises and keep them, just as we do. Occasionally they will try for some covert deal, just as we do. These usually fail, as they do with us. Hence they make up a very small part of their dealings.

This illusion that the US is perfect and everyone else is bent on world domination, war, torture and corruption is getting a bit old. Time to realize that we are just one player in a world of people who are all looking out for themselves - just like we are. And that we can get a lot more for our efforts by working with them than trying to kill people.

>Of course it is. War will disrupt their shady little plans... just like it
>did to France and Germany in Iraq.

Once you start seeing war as a good thing, rather than a tragedy that results in hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead - then it becomes a hammer and all problems become nails. Problem is that the survivors remember what you did. There will come a day where we are no longer the world's superpower - and on that day you better pray that we have not treated Russia, China, Iran etc as badly as we have treated Iraq. Or there will be a new "war on terror" but with a target we won't like as much.

[Trent 0]

Genius response... of course, taking what you want to hear and pasting it in.

Here's another quote from Glaspie from that meeting:

"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi [Chadli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League ] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

And one more...

"We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"

Kinda puts the later comments into perspective. I might add that the only transcript of the meeting comes from Iraqi documents. So you'd beleive that, but not Tariq Aziz? It's not that they'd change anything that wasn't in their interests or anything, would they?

I like how you say you listen to things with less spin, but spin things more than many in your own way.

Quote

This illusion that the US is perfect and everyone else is bent on world domination, war, torture and corruption is getting a bit old.

.... Are you kidding? No one is saying that we are perfect. I'm just saying that it is just as stupid to think that the US is bent on domination, torture, and corruption. Now... who would think that.... hmmm?

Quote

Once you start seeing war as a good thing, rather than a tragedy that results in hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead

No one said that either, Bill. You have to learn to stop making up arguments for people just because you have a good retort. Now you're just preaching against something I haven't said.

Oh, hello again!

[rehmwa 2]

Did anyone first read the title of this thread as "Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Ham and Pain'"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Trent 0]

I thought it was "Spam and Eggs"

Oh, hello again!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I thought it was "Spam and Eggs"

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, Lobster Thermodor, and spam

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tbrown 26]

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said a statement delivered by the Iranian delegation. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

[kallend 2,115]

Quote

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said a statement delivered by the Iranian delegation. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

I heard the cocksucker actually say this on NPR this morning. I don't think they have any concept of the utter annihilation they are bringing on themselves, but it's time we considered making the first strike.

Just tell Vladi Putin that this has nothing to do with him and to stay the fuck out unless he wants some too. Then fucking annihilate Iran. Fuck them. Kill them all, then take their oil. Fuck 'em.

No troops either, just nukes, Fuck 'em. They want nuclear war, then give it to them in full measure. It will put a stop to this Islamic bullshit once & for all.

The fewer Moslems there are in this world (it will never be eradicated), the better for the rest of us.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Stop holding back. Tell us how you really feel.