Ho hum- Just another week in Iraq

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I know, I know. The ghettos here at home are dangerous and there are a lot of car crashes.

But those things were not caused by another nation coming to 'save' us.



Bodies of 50 Hostages Found in Iraqi River

Another 19 Iraqis Found Shot Dead in Soccer Stadium
AP


Iraqi President Jalal Talabani provided few details about the discovery of the bodies.



BAGHDAD, Iraq (April 20) - The bodies of more than 50 people have been recovered from the Tigris River and have been identified, President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday. The bodies were believed to have been those of hostages seized in the Madain region earlier this month.

In a separate discovery, another 19 Iraqis were shot to death and left lined up against a bloodstained wall in a soccer stadium in the town of Haditha, about 140 miles northwest of Baghdad, an Iraqi reporter and residents said.

At a news briefing, Talabani said more than 50 bodies were pulled from the Tigris.

''We have the full names of those who were killed and those criminals who committed these crimes,'' he said.

Talabani did not say when or where the bodies had been found. However, he provided the information in response to a question about the search for hostages reportedly seized from the Madain region, south of Baghdad.

Shiite leaders and government officials claimed last week that Sunni militants had abducted as many as 100 Shiite residents from the area, but when Iraqi forces moved into Madain, they found no captives.

In Haditha, taxi drivers Usama Rauf and Ousama Halim said they rushed to the stadium after hearing gunshots and found the bodies lined up against a wall. The reporter and other residents counted 19 bodies and said all appeared to have been shot.

Residents said they believed the victims - all men in civilian clothes - were soldiers abducted by insurgents as they headed home for a holiday marking the birthday of the prophet Muhammad.

The reporter did not see any military identification documents on the bodies and it was not immediately possible to confirm the claim.

U.S. forces had no report of the incident but were investigating, said 1st Lt. Kate VandenBossche of the U.S. 2nd Marine Division.

Militant violence has surged in the past week, especially in the capital, with explosions often going off one after another in the morning.

Three suicide car bombs, including one targeting a U.S. convoy, and several shootings killed at least six Iraqis in Baghdad on Wednesday. A seventh Iraqi was killed outside Baghdad.

On Tuesday, insurgents killed at least 15 people throughout Iraq, including two U.S. soldiers hit by a suicide bomber in Baghdad, and a former aide to Saddam Hussein's half brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, who was gunned down in southern Iraq, officials said.

A car bomb exploded Wednesday near a U.S. convoy in an area of western Baghdad where the notorious Abu Ghraib prison is located, setting an oil tanker on fire, said police Maj. Moussa Abdulkarim. Two Iraqis were killed and five wounded, said Hussam Abdulrazaq, an official at the nearby al-Yarmouk Hospital. The U.S. military had no immediate information on the incident.

The two other car bombs exploded in southern Baghdad. One missed a police convoy but hit a civilian car, killing two Iraqis and wounding four, said police Capt. Falah al-Muhamadwai. The other exploded in a parking lot near Bilat al-Shuhada police station in Dora area, wounding four civilians, said police Lt. Hassan Falah.

South of the city, one Iraqi policeman was killed and two were seriously wounded when their patrol was hit by a roadside bomb in the town of Mowailha, said police Capt. Muthana Al-Furati.

In Sadr city, a poor section of eastern Baghdad, gunmen in a speeding car shot and killed policeman Ali Talib as he walked toward his car, said Col. Hussein Abdulwahid of the local police force. In another part of east Baghdad, gunmen attacked a Health Ministry car, killing the driver and wounding one unidentified passenger, said police Col. Hassan Jaloub.

On Tuesday night, an attack by a suicide car bomber near an American patrol in southern Baghdad killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded four, said Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, a spokesman for America's 3rd Infantry Division. Seven Iraqi civilians also were wounded, said an Al-Yarmouk Hospital official.

In the southern city of Basra, Abdulal al-Batat, a former aide to Saddam's half brother al-Hassan, was killed Tuesday when gunmen fired at him outside his home, said police Lt. Col. Karim al-Zaydi.

Al-Hassan, who was suspected of financing insurgents after U.S. troops ousted Saddam in 2003, was captured in Syria and turned over to Iraqi authorities in February.

Al-Qaida in Iraq, the nation's most feared terror group, claimed responsibility for Tuesday's worst attack, a suicide bombing near an army recruitment center in Baghdad that police said killed at least six Iraqis and wounded 44.

Also Tuesday, the U.S. military said it regretted an incident in which a Shiite legislator linked to a radical anti-American cleric was briefly held at a checkpoint by American soldiers.

Fattah al-Sheik tearfully told Parliament he had been handcuffed and humiliated at a U.S. checkpoint on his way to work. He claimed an American soldier kicked his car, mocked the legislature, handcuffed him and held him by the neck. The assembly demanded a U.S. apology and prosecution of the soldier involved.

''What happened to me represents an insult to the whole National Assembly that was elected by the Iraqi people. This shows that the democracy we are enjoying is fake,'' al-Sheik said. ''Through such incidents, the U.S. Army tries to show that it is the real controlling power in the country, not the new Iraqi government.''

A U.S. military statement said its initial investigation indicated that al-Sheik got into an altercation with a coalition translator at the checkpoint. U.S. soldiers tried to separate them and ''briefly held on to the legislator,'' while preventing another member of al-Sheik's party from getting out of his car.

''We have the highest respect for all members of the Transitional National Assembly. Their safety and security is critically important,'' U.S. Brig. Gen. Karl R. Horst said in the statement. ''We regret this incident occurred and are conducting a thorough investigation.''

Al-Sheik's small party has been linked to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who led uprisings against the U.S.-led coalition in 2004. On his way home after the session, gunmen fired on al-Sheik's convoy, but he escaped unharmed, police and his party said.


04-20-05 11:20EDT
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
kosar,

i think some of us should go over there & entertain the troops to raise their spirits..what do you think ?

i'll go if you go.....

anybody else ?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I'll see if I can round up some of the ladies I saw last night and convince them to go. That or the ones hired for SB party would do very nicely ...I just don't won't it go bad, like the helicopter Playboy Bunnies scene in Apocolypse Now.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Please Kosar, now is not the time to talk about Iraq. I just found out that the ultra rich are being taxed!
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
AR182 said:
kosar,

i think some of us should go over there & entertain the troops to raise their spirits..what do you think ?

i'll go if you go.....

anybody else ?

Sure man, I guess. Pick a date and let's go!
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
we need some more naked pictures of detainees.....that`ll get this stuff off the front pages...

yeah, i'm sure there are plenty of them out there. Just have to wait for the right soldier to send some pics home..
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
another day-but quite diff than past--when they were killed thousands at a time.Being able to vote for 1st time on destiny of their country--watch independent news media--elect their leaders--ect.

Something liberals fail to understand is freedom has its price--if they ran country back in days of revolution we'd still be under British control.
I can see there media and protesters now wailing about the body counts and is it worth it.
Some of us think so.;) as they do in Ukraine-Afgan-Iraq ect and a few mostly liberals in other countries and U.S. apparently think not--but they are in still in the minority for time being--as witnessed by dominating elections here--in Australia--and coming next month in Britian. Really I think their #'s are few they just make a lot of noise after years of protesting and have the liberal media to promote their agenda.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Some of us think so.;) as they do in Ukraine-Afgan-Iraq ect and a few mostly liberals in other countries and U.S. apparently think not--but they are in still in the minority for time being--as witnessed by dominating elections here--in Australia--and coming next month in Britian. Really I think their #'s are few they just make a lot of noise after years of protesting and have the liberal media to promote their agenda.

lol- Please. 'Dominating election.' Bush won Ohio by a few points.

Also, once again for the fiftieth time, the large majority of the worlds population is against the war in Iraq. Except for Israel, (and possibly the US depending on the day of the week) I don't believe there isn't a single country whose populus is over 50-50 in favor. That's not really a 'minority', no matter how you try to spin it.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
since when does u.s. foreign policy depend on the consent of any other country or world body?...should we poll the u.n,france,lebanon and al qaida?....the world,through the u.n.,is as corrupt as it gets...we now know that they were helping saddam.....why would we want their blessing...when they seek to undermine us at every turn?...


would it be better to have saddam back?.....we`ll never know the answer to that,definitively....i`d say it`s a good thing that he`s gone....like it`s good that the btk killer is off the streets...he took a long respite from his "activities".....but,i`m glad he`s out of circulation for good.......at least iraq has a shot at self determination...

but...lets go on the assumption that saddam had no weapons of any kind....none were found...i believe it`s totally possible that they were removed prior to the war.......they weren`t found....funny,but it was absolutely known that he had chemical weapons....where are they...saddam couldn`t verify that he destroyed them?....if he had,that may have helped circumvent his removal......did he want to be removed?.... see his sons dead?....i don`t think so...

where are they?....why not allow the inspectors to verify that they were destroyed?... do himself a favor....

they disappeared into thin air....amazing.......but,i digress


fast forward to iran circa 2005....they are very close to getting their nuclear capability...the u.n.,as usual,dragging their feet with no stomach to do anything......anywhere....at anytime...be it iraq.....or the slaughter in the sudan....or iran...or n korea......nothing...nada...

this is who you want determining our course of action?......not me...

they don`t care about nuclear proliferation...all these scam artists and "entrepreneurs" care about is lining their pockets....now,the u.n. investigators are quitting their task because paul volker isn`t going to let his man kofi annan take a hit....more corruption....

where does it end...

does anyone believe that saddam would be sitting on his hands as iran arms itself to the teeth?

doesn`t anyone believe that its possible....actually quite probable that we would be forced to revisit the saddam issue yet again in the near future?......that`s a sure bet...a sure thing...

you think the u.n. would stop him?...

they were working FOR him...i repeat...they were working FOR him

how many times has it been?...building a reactor in the 70`s....invading neighboring countries..burning oil fields.....thumbing his nose at the impotent u.n.....threatening to destroy israel......

do we try and stop the madness....or just do like the u.n. and capitulate?

whose ass is on the line?....if the oil fields are rendered unusable because of an all out middle eastern war....replete with nuclear weapons...

if the iranians(know to have ties to terrorists) and/iraqis or the north koreans use the terrorists as their surrogate to destroy the only enemies that will stand up against them?(the u.s.,britain and israel)....

think about what the world would look like if we were like france and the u.n....

saddam would have nukes....and he`d have kuwait(and a huge boot on the world`s neck)....israel might be gone...as possibly,would a healthy portion of the world`s oil supply....he burned the fields in kuwait..what makes anyone think that with the wherewithal,he wouldn`t take it to the next level...

do we put our faith in the corrupt u.n.?.....we know the u.n. is a joke....do we let them make our decisions?....france?

let`s let the u.n. take care of us...bury our heads in the sand like the france`s of the world always do...

if we decided to stop all and every preemptive action to secure our safety....and our best interests....we`d better seriously shut the f-cking borders down.....get serious about sdi......stop sending f-cking aid to all these pissant countries that hate us...that bitch and complain about us....stop subsidzing the u.n. that undermines us at every turn....

would you trust the u.n. to do the right thing in iraq?...or anywhere?.....knowing what we know now?...
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
lol- you're on a roll this afternoon, GW.

I think the bottom line is very simple. Saddam was contained. It's been verified by report after report conducted by our own government, intelligence agencies, etc.

We, ourselves, have concluded that he has not had any sort of a weapons program since 1991. None, nada, zilch. However much of a joke the UN is, their inspectors have said that all along.

Yes, the reports also say that Saddam hoped to restart his program as soon as the world stopped watching. Well, duh. Add him to nearly every other leader in the world. And doesn't that kind of prove the point that containment was working? The world was not ever going to stop watching him.

Yes, the UN is a joke with their corruption, but is that really a reason to invade Iraq?

Yes, France was profiting by trading with Iraq. So was a subsidiary of Haliburton.

And it certainly had nothing to do with the UN 'taking care of us.' We were taking care of ourselves and it was working.

Besides the body bags, we find ourselves arguing in favor of the tax cuts past and present while railing on about those worthless leeches from the inner city who are such a drain. Well, wtf, what about this money pit called a war in Iraq? And for what? Enabling people in Iraq to control their destiny? That's about a 2% long-term chance to begin with, but even if it happens, how can this possibly be worth it?

We've opened up yet another country to Al-Qaeda and their presence will likely be there until the end of time.

Just what we needed, another country, along with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc, that is infested with terrorists.

So, we have exposed the Iraqi population to elections that don't have a chance in hell of sticking more than a month after we leave and we also have exposed them to a whole new form of terror. No more Saddam, but plenty of others looking to blow them up or line them up against a wall and shoot them.

So, how has this benefited us? America, that is. I've asked this before without much of a response.

Questions about Saddam being any sort of threat to anybody, let alone us, have been answered. So, how?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
since when does u.s. foreign policy depend on the consent of any other country or world body?...should we poll the u.n,france,lebanon and al qaida..

We should not need anybodys consent to do anything. But it *does* get a little tiring seeing Dogs continually 'cite' how the world is with us on this, when it's just the opposite. Sometimes I think he lives in an alternate universe or something.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
the world isn`t with us....that`s a fact....the world wasn`t with churchill,either...or reagan....the french rolled over on their backs then....as they are now....

and as far as saddam being a threat,if you really believe that by turning our heads and letting the u.n. "contain" him,that the guy turns into gandhi,well,i don`t know what to say....i`d say his track record says otherwise...particularly with his neighbors "arming up" under the watchful eye of u.n. inspectors...

"""""""would you say that the u.n. is containing iran?....did clinton`s well intentioned treaties with n. korea contain them?.....and iran`s nuclear capability would have left saddam no choice but to join in the fun....

exactly what has the u.n. contained?..how has iran built a nuclear program under the eye of u.n. inspectors? ...i wish someone would explain that one...because that`s what they`ve done....are the inspectors so inept?...or are they in the bag?....""""""


not saying that we can invade every country that tries to build the bomb.....

but,if the u.n. had acted responsibly during the iraqi situation.....provided a united front...the war wouldn`t have happened...

the u.n...particularly france...ran interference for saddam....they enabled him....they are as much the cause of the war as anything...

saddam...and the world..never thought the u.s. would take him out on their own....

he was wrong....

now...how about those inspectors and iran....how can that be rationalized?
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I certainly believe our own interests have to be paramount - even if "world opinion" is otherwise. But I don't believe the Bush administration was thinking in our best interest over Iraq. As more and more comes out, it appears they pushed the right buttons with the CIA to get exactly what they wanted in terms of misleading intelligence. They were clearly in a hurry to get the war started and refused to consider everything or plan it all. Terrible strategy and shady manipulation of public support. It certainly has been very expensive - and will continue to be for some time. ...and let's spend what it takes and not be unrealistic like Bush when he doesn't include in his future budget estimations.

As for the UN - yeah, their days might be numbered. They appear to be as bad of a beaurocracy as they come. BUT it's not like the entire organization is corrupt. The regular inspections of Iraq were working. No, it doesn't mean they would necessarily work forever, but where are we now? Money and lives are an object. As we eventually close in on the same number that died on 9-11, we'll be asking ourselves some questions I'm sure. I do believe that it was in our best interest to not give up on working with the UN. We must make sure all the oil for food criminals are put away - no doubt. It is moot now - I want to spare no expense to make Iraq work. I want it to succeed, I want Bush to look good over it. I'm willing to sacrifice any "I told you so's" and have everyone look at this as a great war in our history in order for things to turn out well. In some ways it has gone very well, in other ways we just don't know.

As for Iran, I don't know. Can force be used to keep them from developing nukes? Can we go to war with them and Iraq at the same time? What right does any other nation have to possess nukes instead of them? Is it possible to be on friendly terms with them and for them to be nuclear? Even if we stop them now, can we stop them forever? Honestly, I don't know what to do about this. I do know that the up and coming generation there is pro-Western. There is opportunity for a good relationship at some point one way or another. And I also know Iran is much larger than Iraq in size, population, wealth, military power - basically in all ways. If we think at all that any conflict with them would be anywhere near as easy as Iraq, we'll be seriously dissappointed.
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
the world isn`t with us....that`s a fact....the world wasn`t with churchill,either...or reagan....the french rolled over on their backs then....as they are now....

True, and I don't believe we should listen to anybody when it comes to our foreign policy/invasions/whatever. I also don't believe that we have to nod our heads and agree with everything that we do without criticizing what we feel to be f*cked up policy.




and as far as saddam being a threat,if you really believe that by turning our heads and letting the u.n. "contain" him,that the guy turns into gandhi,well,i don`t know what to say....i`d say his track record says otherwise...particularly with his neighbors "arming up" under the watchful eye of u.n. inspectors...


You seem to be under some sort of impression that we were relaxing, hanging out and ignoring Saddam, while Europe was 'taking care of us.' *We* were containing him, not France or the UN. Regardless of which neighbors were 'arming up', Saddam could not make a move, even with convential weapons, much less WMD, as has been proven.



would you say that the u.n. is containing iran?....


Although Iran probably has their eye on nukes, they have not done anything to break treaties, or whatever, yet. It's an extremely difficult situation and i'm not sure there is a good, easy answer. You seem to sometimes forget that we're a part of the UN also. You're using 'UN' as a replacement for 'France' or something.


did clinton`s well intentioned treaties with n. korea contain them?

Well, I don't know. How could we after our President played Mr. Macho and got the inspectors kicked out of there. Jong-Il booted them, ripped out the video cameras and unsealed the fuel rods. I tend to doubt that they have a workable nuke at this point, but because of the cowboy, we have no way to monitor anymore. NK says they have a couple, the CIA says they have a couple, but we know how credible either of those are.

.....and iran`s nuclear capability would have left saddam no choice but to join in the fun....

Iran nuke or Iran no nuke makes no difference. Saddam would have tried to develop a program as soon as possible. That fact that he couldn't so anything at all in 13 years is telling.

exactly what has the u.n. contained?..how has iran built a nuclear program under the eye of u.n. inspectors? ...i wish someone would explain that one...because that`s what they`ve done....are the inspectors so inept?...or are they in the bag?....


The physical reactors that they have do not violate anything. Now, certainly they have been working hard on the scientific/intellectual part of the program. Unless the inspectors somehow can get contacts/spies/informants, this would be very hard to detect. That should be our job, the CIA, but those idiots got 90% of their horrible intel in Iraq from one person who was not credible to begin with. I doubt they could develop any concrete moles within the Iranian nuclear program.

So we are dealing with perceived intent and not violations or any evidence or any intel to speak of. So, what now? Take a stab at another war? Or what? This one is much more complicated than Iraq, and Iraq hasn't been very smooth itself.



but,if the u.n. had acted responsibly during the iraqi situation.....provided a united front...the war wouldn`t have happened...

Well of course the war still would have happened. Why not?

the u.n...particularly france...ran interference for saddam....they enabled him....they are as much the cause of the war as anything...

Probably, in a way.

saddam...and the world..never thought the u.s. would take him out on their own....

he was wrong....

Well, yes, he was wrong.

now...how about those inspectors and iran....how can that be rationalized?


How can *what* be rationalized?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
the cat`s out of the bag....mostly...if not entirely because of the u.n....

i just get seriously bugged when people say that "the u.n contained anything".......the did not...the have not.....they will not....

"""""""""""""IRAN: Curtailing the Nuclear Program

What's being done to curtail Iran's nuclear program?

The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA)

has broadened its inspections program in Iran after growing

evidence suggested the country was seeking the capacity to

build nuclear weapons in violation of its commitments under

the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In particular, inspectors have recently found traces of weapons-grade

fissile materials at Iranian nuclear sites, fanning fears

that Iran may soon possess the key ingredients needed to build

nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is intended

for peaceful energy uses only, as allowed under the NPT.

What are some of the warning signs that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons?

Among them:

In February, the IAEA announced that inspectors had found traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium that either was bought overseas or developed in Iran, and an isotope of polonium-210, an initiator--or trigger--for nuclear weapons.
Inspectors in February also discovered enriched uranium traceable to Russia or one of the former Soviet republics.
Last fall, Iranian officials admitted that Iran has been secretly developing a uranium centrifuge enrichment program for the last 18 years and a laser enrichment program for 12 years, both violations of the NPT.
Iran failed to reveal to the IAEA that it imported 1.8 metric tons of natural uranium from China in 1991 and stored it at an undisclosed laboratory at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.
Iranian officials want to mine and enrich their own uranium, which many experts say is costly and unnecessary for the civilian nuclear program that Iran is pursuing. On October 21, 2003, Iran agreed to suspend, but not dismantle, this aspect of its program. Experts point out that Iran did not commit to a permanent suspension.
Iran was a client of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, who admitted last year to selling nuclear secrets abroad.
Iran acknowledged in February 2003 that it was constructing a previously undeclared gas centrifuge uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. Subsequent IAEA inspections found traces of weapons-grade uranium there.
Traces of enriched uranium were also found at a centrifuge workshop near Tehran called the Kalaye Electric Company.
Iran also acknowledged in February 2003 that it was constructing a secret heavy water production facility in Arak, just north of Natanz. Heavy water can be used in nuclear reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium, another fuel for nuclear weapons"""".....

and guess who is providing technology besides the rogue pakistani scientist?.....our u.n. rivals the russians...


"""""""How does the United States want to deal with the problem?

Experts say the United States is pushing the IAEA to declare Iran in breach of the NPT and bring the issue before the United Nations Security Council. If Iran is found to be in violation, the Security Council could authorize sanctions. The point, Levi says, is to show the world that in Iran, like Iraq last year, "uncertainty [about its nuclear program] is intolerable." Some U.S. officials believe that the threat of sanctions deters proliferation. Officials in other countries, however, are reluctant to apply them to Iran for fear of political fallout.

How does Europe want to deal with the problem?

The European Union, and especially France and Germany, favors discussions with Iran rather than confrontation. Levi says Germany considers strongly worded IAEA resolutions enough to prod Iran into better behavior. The European Union is reluctant to push Iran too far, lest the country withdraw from the NPT altogether; then, it is feared, the international community would lose any leverage over Iran's nuclear ambitions. In addition, experts say, France and Russia have economic interests in Iran they are reluctant to lose to international sanctions."""""""

head in the sand........sound familiar....

not even sanctions...

what amazes me is how short sighted the russians,germans and french appear to be......

the europeans have a history of doing the wrong thing...or doing nothing at all....like france taking it up the ass in ww2...without even fighting....

it galls me to think of the british being bombed for months on end by the germans....and never quitting......while the cowardly french got buggered like the sissies that they are...

they are at the root cause of the iraqi invasion...they gave saddam the hope to defy the u.n.....

and now the european union will do nothing to curtail iraqi`s neclear ambitions...
 
Last edited:

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
Is it possible that Iran wants nuclear capability for peaceful purposes?

Possible but highly unlikely, experts say. Iran is a major oil producer, which casts doubt on its claims to need nuclear power. In addition, Nelson says, the centrifuges Iran currently possesses are far more sophisticated than what would be needed for peaceful uses. Nuclear experts warn that a more likely scenario is that Iran will develop a legal nuclear power program, then drop out of the NPT (which requires only 90 days' notice) and rapidly switch to an illegal nuclear weapons program. According to the NPT, Iran may build any nuclear facility, including uranium enrichment plants to create nuclear fuel, as long as the facility is devoted to peaceful uses and subject to IAEA safeguards and inspections.


Why are some nations trying to stymie Iran's nuclear ambitions?

Because "it`s in the best interesta of the world to prevent the further nuclearization of the Middle East," says Robert Nelson, MacArthur science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Experts fear that if Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the volatile region--including Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia--would want to follow. The NPT is intended to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and halt the arms race""".....

the problem is,so many nations are more intersted in making a few bucks than curtailing a nuclear arms race......

that scares me...


lol...lets wait and see.....it works for the french....when they have the u.s. and the brits to bail their cowardly asses out time and again...
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
The point, Levi says, is to show the world that in Iran, like Iraq last year, "uncertainty [about its nuclear program] is intolerable." Some U.S. officials believe that the threat of sanctions deters proliferation.

I guess I don't understand this Levi guys statement. How does threatening sanctions eliminate 'uncertainty?' And 'uncertainty' by whose definition? There was absolutely no uncertainty about Iraq and we were dead wrong about everything.

So we impose sanctions, Iran withdraws from the NPT, boots inspectors and is left alone to do as they please.

If our goal is that they are sanctioned and then decide to drop the program, then we are hopelessly naive.

So we can assume that sanctions won't work, because they won't. Now what? Try to get some decent intel on exact locations of their reactors and try to take them out simultaneously in surgical strikes? No way that will work. It would take a force of probably twice or three times what we have in Iraq to even have a shot at overwhelming their forces and searching that whole country for WMD and for reactors. Then we could have our third country in receivorship.

That evidence posted above isn't exactly a smoking gun, although the chances are pretty good that they are striving for nukes. Giving the choices of how to 'try' to eliminate their program, I have to wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top