Iran obtained Nuke plans on black market

[southsider2k5]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/31/D8FG37780.html

[whitesoxfan101]

They are a bigger concern to us than Iraq ever dreamed of being.

[Rex Kickass]

This is such a difficult situation to handle.

[WCSox]

They are a bigger concern to us than Iraq ever dreamed of being.

 

And perhaps that's part of the reason why we have so many troops next door in Iraq right now.

Edited February 1, 2006 by WCSox

[FlaSoxxJim]

And perhaps that's part of the reason why we have so many troops next door in Iraq right now.

I don't recall that as being one of the justifications for the invasion. But your are quite likely correct, and there are probably all kinds of reasons for us being there besides for the fanciful official ones.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, that's not the reason at all.

[Balta1701]

And yeah...those troops in Iraq aren't doing anything right now. They're just having a happy vacation sitting next to their tanks. All of their equipment is in prime condition, and they're very well rested. If needed to, they could easily jump across the border, conquer Iran, and have yet another nation throw flowers on us and give us oil.

[WCSox]

And yeah...those troops in Iraq aren't doing anything right now.  They're just having a happy vacation sitting next to their tanks.  All of their equipment is in prime condition, and they're very well rested.  If needed to, they could easily jump across the border, conquer Iran, and have yet another nation throw flowers on us and give us oil.

 

I have little doubt that building U.S.-friendly coalition in the bordering country to Iran was always part of the plan. The CIA has known about their nuclear ambitions for a long time. Say what you want about oil, but a nation that is CLEARLY trying to build nuclear weapons and has publically called for the destruction of Israel needs to be stopped. I'm hoping that sanctions will work and that it won't come to an armed conflict, but we're dealing with a head of state that's a complete lunatic.

[Balta1701]

I have little doubt that building U.S.-friendly coalition in the bordering country to Iran was always part of the plan.  The CIA has known about their nuclear ambitions for a long time.  Say what you want about oil, but a nation that is CLEARLY trying to build nuclear weapons and has publically called for the destruction of Israel needs to be stopped.  I'm hoping that sanctions will work and that it won't come to an armed conflict, but we're dealing with a head of state that's a complete lunatic.

Which is why it would have been nice to still have an army available which could at least make a credible threat towards Iran, in the way that our buildup in Kuwait forced Saddam to allow the UNMOVIC team into Iraq to verify that he was in fact WMD Disarmed in early 2003.

 

It would have been very nice to be able to sit there in Kuwait and say "Iran...stop this immediately or it will mean war". Right now, we can say "Iran, stop this immediately or we'll put sanctions on you, but not so many sanctions that you'll stop selling oil or so many that you'll really notice them." One of those is going to be more effective than the other.

[Flash Tizzle]

You figure it's inevitable Iran will one day (sooner, rather than later) have the capabilities to finally assemble a nuclear weapon.

 

Honestly, I believe it's too late for any worthwhile actions. Will economic sanctions derail their bold ambitions? No. Can Israel possibly destroy every independent site housing nuclear material? Probably not. Won't stop them from trying.

 

Somehow, I don't believe the Iranian president cares much about the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction. He can order a nuclear strike of Israel from another country, anyways. His ass won't be incinerated or fused with sand.

 

Israel should have taken out Iranian facilities a long time ago. When the proper intelligence became availble, they just should have circumvented the entire sanctions/negotiations practice and forcibly destroyed Iran's capabilities. Who cares about criticism? The entire Middle East, in addition almost the entire planet, could care less about Israel as it is. Better than looking over your shoulder at some f***ing lunactic promoting your annihilation.

[Balta1701]

Israel should have taken out Iranian facilities a long time ago. When the proper intelligence became availble, they just should have circumvented the entire sanctions/negotiations practice and forcibly destroyed Iran's capabilities. Who cares about criticism? The entire Middle East, in addition almost the entire planet, could care less about Israel as it is. Better than looking over your shoulder at some f***ing lunactic promoting your annihilation.

As far as I know...the proper intelligence probably still isn't available. We've never found any cite at which Iran has enriched uranium beyond what is necessary for electricity production. Had anyone known of a site where they were doing so...feeding that intel to the IAEA would put Iran at a horrible disadvantage.

 

That even assumes of course that it would be possible for Israel to actually pull off the strike, given that Iran seems to have built their program in a dispersed manner with buildings made as strongly as they could in order to protect against an Israeli strike.

[NorthSideSox72]

As far as I know...the proper intelligence probably still isn't available.  We've never found any cite at which Iran has enriched uranium beyond what is necessary for electricity production.  Had anyone known of a site where they were doing so...feeding that intel to the IAEA would put Iran at a horrible disadvantage.

 

That even assumes of course that it would be possible for Israel to actually pull off the strike, given that Iran seems to have built their program in a dispersed manner with buildings made as strongly as they could in order to protect against an Israeli strike.

 

I'll reiterate what I've said on this before...

 

1. Israel absolutely has the military capabilities to pull off a strike on numerous targets in Iran. They have the right aircraft, the right ordinance, and the right infrastructure. The only problem would be the length of the route, but that can be solved easily enough by way of the Red Sea / Arabian Sea approach and extra fuel tanks.

2. Israel won't attack unless they are pretty darn sure they have a handle on where all the right facilities are to be attacked.

3. If Israel does acquire said knowledge, they will attack, and attempt to destroy said facilities. I have no doubt.

4. If this happens, things will get far uglier than they currently are all over the Middle East.

5. The only thing keeping Israel from this path is the extreme difficulty in getting the information they need.

[Rex Kickass]

I have little doubt that building U.S.-friendly coalition in the bordering country to Iran was always part of the plan. The CIA has known about their nuclear ambitions for a long time.  Say what you want about oil, but a nation that is CLEARLY trying to build nuclear weapons and has publically called for the destruction of Israel needs to be stopped.  I'm hoping that sanctions will work and that it won't come to an armed conflict, but we're dealing with a head of state that's a complete lunatic.

 

If that was the case, we really did a bad job.

 

Iraq considers Iran an ally now.

[WCSox]

Which is why it would have been nice to still have an army available which could at least make a credible threat towards Iran, in the way that our buildup in Kuwait forced Saddam to allow the UNMOVIC team into Iraq to verify that he was in fact WMD Disarmed in early 2003.

 

And where would we put that army? Neither Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan would allow it for obvious political reasons.

 

I'll buy the argument that invading Iran might've been the better strategy. Then again, Saddam was absolutely going out of his way to make the world believe that he was hiding something. Therefore, it's difficult to say that one regime was a greater threat than the other.

 

It won't take U.S. forces to bring Iran to their knees. The Israelis are capable of handling them themselves. And given the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, they also have more than enough motive at this point. The Europeans are also on our side in the Iran issue and could be involved as well. Iran will be dealt with, one way or another.

[WCSox]

Iraq considers Iran an ally now.

 

Cindy Sheehan probably considers Iran an ally as well.

 

Likewise, I don't believe that Shiite extremists in Iraq represent the political views of the majority of Iraquis.

[NorthSideSox72]

And where would we put that army?  Neither Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan would allow it for obvious political reasons.

 

I'll buy the argument that invading Iran might've been the better strategy.  Then again, Saddam was absolutely going out of his way to make the world believe that he was hiding something.  Therefore, it's difficult to say that one regime was a greater threat than the other.

 

It won't take U.S. forces to bring Iran to their knees.  The Israelis are capable of handling them themselves.  And given the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, they also have more than enough motive at this point.  The Europeans are also on our side in the Iran issue and could be involved as well.  Iran will be dealt with, one way or another.

 

I find it really easy to distinguish one regime from another in this case. Iran and North Korea were threats. Iraq wasn't. We f**ked up.

 

And Israel won't be looking for a war. Just taking out Iran's nuclear and long-range missle capabilities. That's all they need to do.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I find it really easy to distinguish one regime from another in this case.  Iran and North Korea were threats.  Iraq wasn't.  We f**ked up.

 

And Israel won't be looking for a war.  Just taking out Iran's nuclear and long-range missle capabilities.  That's all they need to do.

 

 

You can bet thats going to happen at some point unless some sort of settlement averts it.

[Balta1701]

And where would we put that army?  Neither Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan would allow it for obvious political reasons.

 

I'll buy the argument that invading Iran might've been the better strategy.  Then again, Saddam was absolutely going out of his way to make the world believe that he was hiding something.  Therefore, it's difficult to say that one regime was a greater threat than the other.

 

It won't take U.S. forces to bring Iran to their knees.  The Israelis are capable of handling them themselves.  And given the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, they also have more than enough motive at this point.  The Europeans are also on our side in the Iran issue and could be involved as well.  Iran will be dealt with, one way or another.

Um...first of all...Kuwait has recently allowed the U.S. to put an army on its territory. That's sort of how we got into Iraq. Secondly...none of those countries shares a border with Iran. Kuwait's the only one even close, but to do that we'd have had to march across Iraq anyway.

 

Iran does share a significant border with Turkey, and given sufficient international support for the operation and the fact that the only thing which stopped us from using them to invade Iraq was the fact that like 90% of their population despised that war, they would be a prime candidate.

[Rex Kickass]

Cindy Sheehan probably considers Iran an ally as well.

 

Likewise, I don't believe that Shiite extremists in Iraq represent the political views of the majority of Iraquis.

 

 

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0...89776121832.htm

 

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2006012101.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internatio...int&oref=slogin

 

The Iraqi government is meeting with the Iranian government. Iraqi militias are pledging to come to Iranian defense if attacked. Syria is announcing its alliance with Iran.

 

This is not the "friendly coalition" we were looking for.

[WCSox]

I find it really easy to distinguish one regime from another in this case.  Iran and North Korea were threats.  Iraq wasn't.  We f**ked up.

 

If Iraq was never a threat, why did the UN have weapons inspectors in there for years? And why did Saddam keep kicking them out?

 

One only knows that Iraq "wasn't a threat" with 20/20 hindsight.

 

And Israel won't be looking for a war.  Just taking out Iran's nuclear and long-range missle capabilities.  That's all they need to do.

 

And that would be fine with me. I don't want a full-scale invasion.

 

Um...first of all...Kuwait has recently allowed the U.S. to put an army on its territory.  That's sort of how we got into Iraq. 

 

Do you think that the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait made them a little more hospitable to our presence? :rolly

 

Iran does share a significant border with Turkey, and given sufficient international support for the operation and the fact that the only thing which stopped us from using them to invade Iraq was the fact that like 90% of their population despised that war, they would be a prime candidate.

 

If Turkey didn't support an invasion of Iraq, there's a good chance that they won't support an invasion of Iran. We certainly can't assume that they will, given that it'll seriously destabilize that region and possibly result in a large influx of refugees.

Edited February 2, 2006 by WCSox

[WCSox]

The Iraqi government is meeting with the Iranian government.

 

Funny, when our government meets with North Korea's, it doesn't mean that we support what they do.

 

Iraqi militias are pledging to come to Iranian defense if attacked.

 

Iraqi "militas" are already attacking our troops.

 

Syria is announcing its alliance with Iran.

 

Oh no, we're doomed! :rolly

 

Seriously, I'm sure that certain factions in the new Iraqi government are going to support Iran. Hell, a certain faction of our government wants us to fail miserably in Iraq. But I don't think that the new Iraqi government is going to be overwhelmingly anti-American. At the very least, I'm going to have to see evidence from somewhere less biased than Islamic news organizations or the blatantly anti-Bush NY Times.

Edited February 2, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

The result of the meeting is Iran referring to the new Iraqi government as a friend in the region. Last time I checked, when we met the North Koreans, they didn't go around saying, "The U.S. is a trusted friend."

[samclemens]

If that was the case, we really did a bad job.

 

Iraq considers Iran an ally now.

 

hardly. iraqi gov't officials wouldnt have a job if it wasnt for us. whether they support iran or not, they arent stupid enough to become allies with iran.

 

edit: oh yeah and we are way too powerful

Edited February 2, 2006 by samclemens

[FlaSoxxJim]

hardly. iraqi gov't officials wouldnt have a job if it wasnt for us. whether they support iran or not, they arent stupid enough to become allies with iran.

 

edit: oh yeah and we are way too powerful

 

Yeah, right. :rolly

 

This was from back in May. A handful of people noticed.

 

Iraq hails Iran FM visit as new start in relations 

 

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

 

LONDON, May 18 - Iraq hailed Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi's landmark visit Tuesday as a new start in their tumultuous relations, while Tehran offered its full support to the new Iraqi government.

 

Kharazi also vowed not to drag Iraq into its bitter row with Washington, according to Agence France Press (AFP).

 

"I have no doubt this visit will open up significant new horizons for cooperation between the two countries," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari said at a joint news conference.

 

"Post-Saddam Iraq is a new Iraq, at peace with its neighbours, far removed from its bellicose predecessor," he said.

 

"We must break with the past and open a new page, build better relations in all fields based on mutual respect and non-interference," Zebari added.

 

Kharazi, the highest-ranking Iranian official to visit Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime two years ago, assured his counterpart that Iran would not interfere in their neighbour's affairs.

 

"Iraqis are in charge of their own affairs... Any interference would be an insult to the Iraqi people," Kharazi said.

 

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...rrent%20Affairs

 

And this was July. . .

 

Updated: 11:46 a.m. ET July 7, 2005

 

TEHRAN, Iran - Iraq’s defense minister said Thursday that ousted leader Saddam Hussein was the aggressor in the 1980-88 war against Iran, as the two former enemies announced plans for closer cooperation between their militaries.

 

Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun al-Duleimi’s visit to Iran marked a new effort to build ties between Iraq and mainly Shiite Muslim Iran after a Shiite-dominated government came to power in Baghdad this year.

 

“We’ve come here to open a new page in our relations against the painful page of the past,” al-Duleimi told reporters at a press conference with his Iranian counterpart, Ali Shamkhani.

 

Shamkhani said Iran and Iraq would form joint committees to work out cooperation on cleaning minefields and “modernizing Iraq’s army.”

 

“No one can prevent this cooperation,” Shamkhani insisted, without elaborating on the extent of the cooperation.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8497845/

 

November. . .

 

Prague, 22 November 2005 -- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani yesterday called Iran "a brother country" and said that he has come to Tehran to deepen strategic relations and get help in rooting out terrorism in Iraq.

 

"As the president of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] said, a secured Iraq, an independent Iraq is in the interest not only of the Iraqi government but of the Iranian people also," Talabani said. "I think [iran] will help us by all means to face terrorist activities, especially that you know, the terrorists are now launching a war of annihilation against the Iraqi people, starting with Shi'ites, Kurds, and those who are refusing to obey their orders."

 

...

 

“Iran and Iraq will always remain in this region, the others, however, will eventually leave.”

 

The Mullahs never could make inroads in Iraq so long as Saddam was in power. So, we can at least feel good that we've united the Shia of Iran and Iraq. We're well on the way to becoming the Godparents to a brand new l'il Iran Junior, eh?

 

But don't ever say anything negative about the predictable situation we've formented in Iraq. That makes you an "isolationist" you know.

Edited February 2, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[NorthSideSox72]

If Iraq was never a threat, why did the UN have weapons inspectors in there for years?  And why did Saddam keep kicking them out?

 

 

Iraq wasn't a threat, in part, because of those very inspectors. Everything published by anyone which included any sort of hard information clearly pointed out that the sanctions and inspections were working, in that they were keeping Saddam's military down, and his nuclear ambitions only a pipe dream. It seemed pretty darn clear to me then, just as now. I am not one who supported the war before, and don't now. I disagreed with it then as well. The US government's case was a pathetic attempt to cover up the real reasons for the invasion - getting an anchorhead in the Middle East, bringing the war on terror to a better tactical environment, and oil.