We May Have To Bomb Iran
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Morphine replied on Mon May 1, 2006 @ 9:23am |
 Coolness: 50965 | We may have to bomb Iran
Sun. 30 Apr 2006 The Sunday Times Opinion Rod Liddle Natanz seems an agreeable little town, perched nearly 5,000ft up in the majestic mountains of central Iran, full of dusty relics of Alexander the Great and black-clad peasants scurrying hither and thither. It is a shame, then, that we may soon be obliged to bomb it to smithereens. An even bigger shame, though, if we don’t. Natanz is where the Iranians are carrying out their hectic uranium enrichment programme — something they were politely requested to stop doing by the International Atomic Energy Agency one month ago. The deadline for them to pack up their thousands of centrifuges passed on Friday — but they are still beavering away and have expressed a marked reluctance to take the slightest notice of the international community. There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that their intention is to produce nuclear weapons; a handful every year, perhaps. The Natanz facility is partially underground, a fact that provoked the IAEA inspectors to note, rather drily, that this was “inconsistent” with the Iranian claims that the plant was solely for the purpose of manufacturing mildly enriched uranium for benignly commercial purposes. Equally anomalous to this defence is the fact that those same inspectors found particles of extremely enriched uranium at Natanz, the sort of stuff you need to make atomic bombs. Presented with this evidence, the Iranians shuffled their feet a little, looked at the ground and then announced that maybe they hadn’t washed the equipment thoroughly when they bought it from the Pakistanis and consequently there was still the odd bit of weapons-grade material kicking around, sorry about that, you know how it is, can’t get the help, etc. You can believe them if you wish. It would be a kinder, happier world if we were all able to trust one another. But my suspicion is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, who has expressed a desire to see Israel wiped from the face of the world, may soon have the wherewithal. A suspicion supported with physical evidence and a statement of malevolent intent. What more evidence do you need? An awful lot more, as far as the international community is concerned. Paralysis has descended since the invasion of Iraq and it afflicts not just the United Nations and the European Union but western public opinion, too. So ill-judged and catastrophic was the Anglo-US adventure against Saddam Hussein that it has warped our ability to think rationally about what to do with Iran. Opposition to pre-emptive military action against Iran will be deafening. The war against Iraq was predicated upon two misconceptions — first of all that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. He did not. His hopeless army possessed scarcely any weapons at all. But even allowing for hindsight, the term “weapons of mass destruction” in Saddam’s case referred only to chemical and biological weapons — which, although thoroughly nasty, are a politically inspired misnomer. It is nukes that inflict genuine mass destruction and there was never a suggestion that Saddam had any of those. The difference with any action against Iran is stark: hard evidence of genuine WMD in preparation; hard, stated evidence of intent. And a clearly defined, containable and comparatively attainable military objective — knocking out that enrichment site at Natanz. I have debated this issue with numerous British politicians, from Tony Benn on the left to Steven Norris on the right, and the result is always the same. “We must negotiate with the Iranians,” they all say, a mantra, a form of whistling in the dark. Well, of course we must first negotiate. Of course we must, later, bring whatever pressure we can to bear from supra-national organisations such as the UN. We should beg, bully, plead and cajole the medieval Ahmadinejad. We should offer economic incentives. When these do not work, we should impose sanctions. We should bar the Iranian team from the World Cup and refuse them entry to the Eurovision song contest — that’ll teach ’em. But what on earth do we do when all that fails, as it looks as though it will? Faced with that probability, there is just silence from the politicians: the question is never answered. Never mind such niceties as verifying Iran’s nuclear aims: there is still a large tranche of the western world that believes with bovine obduracy that because we and the Americans and the French and the Israelis have nukes, why shouldn’t poor old Third World Iran? Fair play to the burka boys, don’t you think? The answer is simple and yet — in some quarters — quite unsayable: because it is Iran. There is a final irony: the war against Iraq may have been at least partially responsible for the election next door of a primitive fundamentalist from the Dark Ages. So, too, the commitment within the country to continue enriching uranium, regardless of how unhappy it might make the imperialistic western powers. One way or another we will need to get to grips with Natanz quite soon. I may not want to live in a world with nuclear weapons — but I really don’t want to live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Mon May 1, 2006 @ 3:30pm |
| Coolness: 148810 | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Tue May 2, 2006 @ 4:00am |
 Coolness: 102760 | ya it was pretty obvious months ago with the announcement of the Iran Oil Bourse that U.S. of A will make a pre-emptive strike on Persia. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Tue May 2, 2006 @ 8:36am |
 Coolness: 145195 | attacking iran is a bad idea... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue May 2, 2006 @ 12:33pm |
 Coolness: 339660 | so is Israel being backed by the US.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Tue May 2, 2006 @ 1:53pm |
 Coolness: 201220 | Want to fuck over iran? Stop buying oil from them, embargo.
That would hurt the country a lot more than a few bombs. Oh wait that's not going to happen. People need to be able to drive their SUVs to starbucks and not pay too too much... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue May 2, 2006 @ 6:00pm |
| Coolness: 339660 | hahahahahahahaha
a US embargo on Iran would make India and China VERY happy. They're dying to get their hands on more oil.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 8:15am |
| Coolness: 145195 | it would just be unwise, it would destablize an already unstable global strategic situation... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 9:12am |
 Coolness: 92260 | yeah, unless/until we nuke the whole country in one shot I think we should stay on their good side. There's no use in pissing them off they will only make things harder on us. That's the problem with people they never wanna be the first to back down or shut up. I don't wanna fuck over Iran I just wanna be safe, I don't see the point in picking at a bears wound and making it miserable and angry and bloodthirsty. Either shoot it or don't, but whatever you do don't pickity pickity pick pick pick. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» flo replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 12:01pm |
 Coolness: 146320 | what's the problem with you, seriously thinking about a nuclear attack ??!! i can't believe it |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Morphine replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 12:02pm |
| Coolness: 50965 | me? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» flo replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 12:03pm |
| Coolness: 146320 | no, just several people in this thread... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 5:13pm |
| Coolness: 102760 | USA does not buy oil from Iran. It has energy sanction against them for a long time. USA import most of their oil needs from us.
The top sources of US crude oil imports for February were Mexico (1.774 million barrels per day), Canada (1.710 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.418 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.342 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (1.178 million barrels per day).
The top five exporting countries accounted for 75 percent of United States crude oil imports in February and the top ten sources accounted for approximately 90 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. Canada was the largest exporter of total petroleum products again this month averaging 2.262 million barrels per day to the United State. [ www.eia.doe.gov ] Oil and Total Petroleum Imports No one in this thread wants to nuke Iran. We're just acknowledging the very possibility of a tactical strike by USA or air strike by Israel. Don't think they will ever use a nuke? This summer in Nevada, the US Military is planning the [ www.sltrib.com ] Strake". It might just as well be a small tactical nuke. the Divine Strake blast will be fifty times larger than the military's largest conventional weapon, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, nicknamed the Mother of All Bombs. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 9:47pm |
| Coolness: 201220 | well Iran deserves no praise, since their government leaders have described how they want to "destroy Israel" and what not, but I think that if their government became more democratic they should be allowed to have access to nuclear power. But right now they are way too sketchy. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 10:51pm |
| Coolness: 148810 | nobody should have nuclear power |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Wed May 3, 2006 @ 11:41pm |
 Coolness: 97095 | like their president said yesterday "if we receive on missile from the US, we'll send half of our missiles on Israel!"
They have a freaking big amount of middle-long range guided missile there, I wouldn't fuck with them! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu May 4, 2006 @ 3:58am |
| Coolness: 145195 | Originally posted by TREY...
USA does not buy oil from Iran. It has energy sanction against them for a long time. USA import most of their oil needs from us. yup the US has not purchased oil from iran since the fall of the shah in 1979 the issue with iran's nuclear program cuts strait to the heart of just and equitable international relations, if we respect the principle of sovereignty which has been the centerpeice of the system of international relations since the peace of westphalia of 1648, then we must accept that iran has the right to do whatever it wants with the uranium it has, after all the uranium is theirs it is mined from ore in the north of iran they did not purchase it illegally or steal it, it belongs them, we know that they there is uranium in the mountains of northern iran because the soviet union mined alot of uranium for their bombs and plants just across the border in Azerbaidzan, we cannot pertend to support a doctrine of international affairs which claims to support the nearly sacred ideal of sovereignty while at the same time maitaining that iran cannot use the resources in its own territory as it pleases, it is absurd, callous, and hypocritical...iran will have the bomb whether we like it or not... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu May 4, 2006 @ 8:56am |
| Coolness: 92260 | I think it's a really controversial subject. On one hand if we have the right to have nuclear power so should they, and it's understandable in light of recent events that they might feel the need for protection. On the other hand it's Iran and they hate us and would probably love nothing more than to see our ashes. No one can really say what they'll do with it but I have a feeling that once it's done and built the americans won't risk an invasion which may be what they want.. let's hope it's what they want and not bloodshed and misery. : |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Fri May 5, 2006 @ 12:13pm |
| Coolness: 145195 | it's bad when you feel like you are living in the movie "syriana" |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri May 5, 2006 @ 1:45pm |
| Coolness: 339660 | i think that movies was meant to depict real world issues.. |
We May Have To Bomb Iran
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
