Stop Iran

**Stop Iran
**Joseph Farah
January 17, 2006

I don’t know how to put this any more succinctly or pointedly: The United States needs to do something to stop the terrorist mullah regime in Iran from becoming a nuclear bomb-producing machine in the next 12 weeks.

[font=Arial]Time is running out.
[/font]
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48355

Man… just Nuke’em and be done with it. :frowning:

It is always best to meet hysteria with reason.

If Iran Gets Nukes…
Deflating the hysteria

Excerpt…

*First, it would be a mistake to think that the character of the Iranian government has remained unchanged since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. In fact, the Islamic Republic has lost much of its revolutionary and ideological fervor over the past two decades, and its government has mellowed considerably. Iran’s has demonstrated moderation and pragmatism in its foreign policy of recent years, as national interests and strategic calculations have taken precedence over ideology. *

*Iran’s determination to maintain close relations with Russia serves as a conspicuous example in this regard. As part of a policy aimed at giving priority to its strategic ties with Russia above all else, Iran has kept silent over the suppression of Muslim separatists and the violation of human rights by the Russian army in Chechnya. In a similar development in the mid-1990s, Iran and Russia used their influence on the Tajik Islamist opposition group and the secular, formerly communist government of Tajikistan respectively to put an end to the long-lasting civil conflict in that country, a nation with which Iran enjoys common cultural and linguistic bonds. Iran’s pragmatic decision to collaborate with Russia in brokering a peace deal between Tajikistan’s warring parties, instead of supporting the Islamist militants, bolstered Iran’s growing ties with Russia. **Iran’s cordial relations with Christian Armenia despite its military conflict with Muslim Azerbaijan also stands in contrast to the prevailing view that Iran’s foreign policy is driven primarily by religious and ideological considerations. Iran’s position on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, for which it has received harsh criticism from some political groups in Azerbaijan and other Muslim countries, shows the overriding importance of national interests in Tehran’s decison-making. *

Azerbaijan also stands in contrast to the prevailing view that Iran’s foreign policy is driven primarily by religious and ideological considerations.

What? Didn’t he just done saying he feels he has a divine mission to get his country ready for the 2nd coming?

Simon Jenkins sums up my position pretty well in today’s Guardian:

guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1688777,00.html

Of all the treaties passed in my lifetime the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) always seemed the most implausible. It was an insiders’ club that any outsider could defy with a modicum of guile. So it has proved. America, sitting armed to the teeth across Korea’s demilitarised zone, has let North Korea become a nuclear power despite a 1994 promise that it would not. America supported Israel in going nuclear. Britain and America did not balk at India doing so, nor Pakistan when it not only built a bomb but deceitfully disseminated its technology in defiance of sanctions. Three flagrant dissenters from the NPT are thus regarded by America as friends.

I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb but a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has “no right” to nuclear defence?

Norman Tebbit said something similar on Question Time last week. It is possibly the first time in my life I’ve agreed with Norman Tebbit!

Mike

[quote=MikeWM]Simon Jenkins sums up my position pretty well in today’s Guardian:

guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1688777,00.html

Norman Tebbit said something similar on Question Time last week. It is possibly the first time in my life I’ve agreed with Norman Tebbit!

Mike
[/quote]

Good cite. Puts things in perspective. :thumbsup:

That article was/is c rap.

:mad:

Yeah, guess Iraq’s oil contribution is starting to dry up, gotta find new turf to take over.

It’s almost a pattern now isn’t it. The hype that a nation is starting to become hostile, that the US speaks for all,(balony, it’s no longer even popular at the UN), the ellegal fly-overs of drones, etc,etc ad nauseum.

The US has been making up these pre-aggression scenes whenever it finds it appropriate. North Korea didn’t buy it and neither did the rest of the world, now they made laughing stock of the US.

They tried it with Russia and China, hey how come nothing happened? Can’t figure it. MMMmmm, well maybe Iran will take up it’s predictable roll in the US play.

Wake up and see the light. If any nation wished to take over any other, wouldn’t it be trying less armed nations first? By the US scale of events, we should have almost a full scale global war going on right now. Why is it that nations who wish modernize to nuclear energy always get the sanction if they share the US view, but are always war mongering if they disagree.

But I’ll tell you why the US coincidentally* just happens* to find a military conflict every 8-10 years, and that is the fact that large standing armed forces need to be fed and justified in the eyes of the citizens. Congress will get the same speel by the brass that there is yet another war imminent. But, hey, the brass is not stupid, they have careers too, and they hate retirement.

But look out the global living room window if you dare to open the curtains you’ll see the birds chirping, relative peace and world trade going on as usual. Lets check out Europe, nope, no full scale war here, Russia arm in arm with them in friendship. Lets check out China, nope no war here, even Tibets struggles are even being negotiated at a peace table, a first. Let’s check out NK, nope, they’re too involved with internal economic problems. But they’re like a nest of African bees, you don’t want to bother them too much. Let’s see, who’s next South East Asia, tourist resorts, nope,…

But is it not coincidental that all the skirmishes have to do with the big oil producing countries. If the US were to really apply it’s principles of democratic freedom for all like Japan, they could do it in Haiti and receive a collective global pat on the back, even as far back as 20 years ago before Kuwait, at 1/2000 the cost.

Ah yes, the US will get angry when their ruse is revealed. Canada sees the light and won’t have anything to do with it’s land grab. England’s citizens will see the problem too eventually, but we can wait.

Andy

:rolleyes:

[quote=AndyF]Yeah, guess Iraq’s oil contribution is starting to dry up, gotta find new turf to take over.

It’s almost a pattern now isn’t it. The hype that a nation is starting to become hostile, that the US speaks for all,(balony, it’s no longer even popular at the UN), the ellegal fly-overs of drones, etc,etc ad nauseum.

The US has been making up these pre-aggression scenes whenever it finds it appropriate. North Korea didn’t buy it and neither did the rest of the world, now they made laughing stock of the US.

They tried it with Russia and China, hey how come nothing happened? Can’t figure it. MMMmmm, well maybe Iran will take up it’s predictable roll in the US play.

Wake up and see the light. If any nation wished to take over any other, wouldn’t it be trying less armed nations first? By the US scale of events, we should have almost a full scale global war going on right now. Why is it that nations who wish modernize to nuclear energy always get the sanction if they share the US view, but are always war mongering if they disagree.

But I’ll tell you why the US coincidentally* just happens* to find a military conflict every 8-10 years, and that is the fact that large standing armed forces need to be fed and justified in the eyes of the citizens. Congress will get the same speel by the brass that there is yet another war imminent. But, hey, the brass is not stupid, they have careers too, and they hate retirement.

But look out the global living room window if you dare to open the curtains you’ll see the birds chirping, relative peace and world trade going on as usual. Lets check out Europe, nope, no full scale war here, Russia arm in arm with them in friendship. Lets check out China, nope no war here, even Tibets struggles are even being negotiated at a peace table, a first. Let’s check out NK, nope, they’re too involved with internal economic problems. But they’re like a nest of African bees, you don’t want to bother them too much. Let’s see, who’s next South East Asia, tourist resorts, nope,…

But is it not coincidental that all the skirmishes have to do with the big oil producing countries. If the US were to really apply it’s principles of democratic freedom for all like Japan, they could do it in Haiti and receive a collective global pat on the back, even as far back as 20 years ago before Kuwait, at 1/2000 the cost.

Ah yes, the US will get angry when their ruse is revealed. Canada sees the light and won’t have anything to do with it’s land grab. England’s citizens will see the problem too eventually, but we can wait.

Andy
[/quote]

[quote=AndyF]Canada sees the light and won’t have anything to do with it’s land grab.
[/quote]

Wrong. Martin was the first off the blocks with her condemnation of Iran.

Speaking of Canada, we have been developing nuclear power for some time now. What makes us different from Iran is that we did not help Saddam Hussein, we did not help terrorists, we did not flame Israel, we did not rattle any sabres.

If developing nuclear power were the only criteria to become the target of US wrath, then Canada would be swarming with American soldiers.

ha!

like that is ever gonna happen.

The US and other countries are treating Ahmadinejad as a threat because he is a threat. Occam’s Razor: if it’s blue, sits in a cage, and says ‘chirp’ then it’s probably a budgie.

[quote=AndyF]England’s citizens will see the problem too eventually, but we can wait.Andy
[/quote]

What are you waiting for? :confused:

[quote=MikeWM]Simon Jenkins sums up my position pretty well in today’s Guardian:

guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1688777,00.html

Norman Tebbit said something similar on Question Time last week. It is possibly the first time in my life I’ve agreed with Norman Tebbit!

Mike
[/quote]

Mike:

The country that helped Israel get the Bomb was FRANCE. The two countries detonated their first device together in the early 1060’s

It was the CLINTON Administration that negotiated an unenforceable deal and then allowed the North Koreans to violate the Deal without so much as a whimper. The North Koreans began manufacturing nuclear bombs during the CLINTON adminstration, and had at least 2 bombs completed before the elections of 2000.

What does this CLINTON Administration foul-up have to do with the Bush Administration? Or, Is this an attempt to inject MORE partisanship into this very partisan debate?

The USA kept 30,000-35,000 troops in South Korea for most of the 1990’s. They were mobile INFANTRY. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) had another 650,000 active duty troops. They were confronting over 1.2 million active duty and 7 million reserve duty men and women in the Korean People’s Army (North Korea) armed with over 10,000 artillery tubes (most in concrete bunkers) aimed at Seuol, and other towns and villages near the DMZ, plus an equal number of mobile artilery tubes (plus 2,500 MBTs).

Sounds like a pretty huge combined force…

Don’t you think the Guardian might have had the wrong party “armed to the teeth”?

The South Korans had over 16 million civilians located within 30 km of the DMZ, with Seuol some 16 km from the DMZ. That made it harder to do much about the budding N. Korean Nuclear program, since it made the South Korean civilians hostages of the long-range N. Korean artillery.

Only recently have the South Koreans relocated those tons, villages and cities south away from the DMZ and the N. Korean artillery tubes. That was at the request of the BUSH Administration, which would like options in dealing with N. Korea’s nuclear weapons program if the negotiations with the PRC and other Asian partners fail.

May I ask, what does the failure of the CLINTON Administration to deal responsibly and correctly with the with the North Korean nuclear weapons program have to do with the Bush Administration’s attempt to deal with the IRANIAN Nuclear weapons program?

In Christ, Michael

[quote=gnjsdad]Good cite. Puts things in perspective. :thumbsup:
[/quote]

gnjsdad:

I happen to have friends in the Iranian crosshairs, and, yes, they happen to be Israeli-Jews.

The FATWA against Israel is still in force. That Fatwa obligates Iran to make nuclear weapons and to use them against Jerusalem and Tel Aviv at the first possible moment.

Iran has built 15 BREEDER reactors with Cascade Centrifuges, buried them underground encased in several meters of concrete and then dispersed them throughout Iran in residential areas.

Breeder reactors with Cascade Centifuges are used only to produce plutonium for atom bombs.

Iran has built 15 of the things.

The Fatwa says the bombs have to be used against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

What do you think the Iranians are doing with those things? If you’re so sure they’re not making bombs with them, or planning to use themon Israel, then when were you planning to move to Israel?

In Christ, Michael

[quote=AndyF]Yeah, guess Iraq’s oil contribution is starting to dry up, gotta find new turf to take over.
[/quote]

Considering the oil is still in Iraq, we haven’t taken it, and the war has costs us much more than we possibly could have saved with the oil situation, so the statement is nonsensical. What’s more, the tone of this very first statement of yours tells me enough to know not to waste my time attempting dialogue.

On the other hand, MikeWM, we disagree a lot, but thank you for the article you posted. I enjoy intellectual discussion, even disagreement. I hope we can stop Iran without force becoming necessary.

[quote=AndyF]England’s citizens will see the problem too eventually, but we can wait.
[/quote]

Not all that many of us supported Iraq, but Tony Blair decided to ignore us and help America anyway. Fortunately, there is very little chance of us allowing any more aggressions, short of Iran nuking London. Iraq burnt far too many bridges.

Mike

[quote=Jay74]On the other hand, MikeWM, we disagree a lot, but thank you for the article you posted. I enjoy intellectual discussion, even disagreement. I hope we can stop Iran without force becoming necessary.
[/quote]

I think President Bush, etc. hopes for that too. I don’t see anyone sensible really wanting a war on this one, it would be too costly for everyone involved.

Mike

[quote=MikeWM]I think President Bush, etc. hopes for that too. I don’t see anyone sensible really wanting a war on this one, it would be too costly for everyone involved.

Mike
[/quote]

My concern is that the UN sanctions will either cause Iran to start playing games with the world oil market, and cause a world-wide depression (very possible) or that the sanctions will be a joke (e.g., forbidding the Iranian soccer team from playing in the World Cup) and really have no effect.

Interesting news coming from the Democrats on this issue:

Hillary Clinton calls for U.N. sanctions against Iran

PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) — U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for “downplaying” the threat.

In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.

“I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said.

.

That’s hilarious! One day America is baaad cuz we didn’t create a real coalition: no french or german or russian involvement (oil-for fraud, anyone?).

Now America is baaad because we let these countries handle the talks with Iran.

Truth and reality, IMO, mean nothing to these people.

[quote=Jay74]Considering the oil is still in Iraq, we haven’t taken it, and the war has costs us much more than we possibly could have saved with the oil situation, so the statement is nonsensical. What’s more, the tone of this very first statement of yours tells me enough to know not to waste my time attempting dialogue.

On the other hand, MikeWM, we disagree a lot, but thank you for the article you posted. I enjoy intellectual discussion, even disagreement. I hope we can stop Iran without force becoming necessary.
[/quote]

Not really, all factual and subjective. Opinionated perhaps, but no worse than you would agree to read in any media of your choice.

Tone.?

Lets’ be honest, you dislike anyone disagreeing with US policy in general?. The truth hurts sometimes, especially when an individual not restrained with conflict of interest makes an unbiased opinion. This explans the national psyche, when every individual manifests the suppression of free opinion especially if it does not conform to his. Well, you can be reassured your leaders are doing their job and conveying the same bias.

I hope we can stop Iran without force becoming necessary.

What is the threat, that they wish to modernize to nuclear energy? C’mon. What examples do we have in the past to show you the paranoia is unfounded?

Why the sudden swing from focus of attention from NK to Iran. Perhaps the difference is these people were discovered to be more insane than the US, and they will suicidally actually do something?. If you really feel this way why aren’t you lobbying for an attack on NK first. I think your JCS will tell you they are afraid of China, just like in Vietnam. In other words they came to the conclusion “we can live without whatever the invasion would have given us”.

Strange that you would even consider force at this stage, not very charitable. Sounds almost threatening and expectant, but what else would we have expected from a “Roman” citizen after 1/4 of the known world was conquered.

Andy

[quote=Ani Ibi]Wrong. Martin was the first off the blocks with her condemnation of Iran.

Speaking of Canada, we have been developing nuclear power for some time now. What makes us different from Iran is that we did not help Saddam Hussein, we did not help terrorists, we did not flame Israel, we did not rattle any sabres.

If developing nuclear power were the only criteria to become the target of US wrath, then Canada would be swarming with American soldiers.

ha!

like that is ever gonna happen.

The US and other countries are treating Ahmadinejad as a threat because he is a threat. Occam’s Razor: if it’s blue, sits in a cage, and says ‘chirp’ then it’s probably a budgie.

What are you waiting for? :confused:
[/quote]

Actually, that is wrong. Chretien stated, and is still current policy, that Canada is a sovereign country and it flatly will not go on in the US insane rampage of resourse grabbing. In fact, it is believed that all candidates in this coming election feel the same.

As far as Saddam, he had a president as a friend who knew he was committing atrocities to the Kurds but decided that US agendas were more important than the Kurds. Which gives credence to the possibility that oil is the objective. If you want to take this to a religiuos level, then look up cases of hypocricy in the O/N Testament.

Andy

[quote=AndyF]Actually, that is wrong. Chretien stated, and is still current policy, that Canada is a sovereign country and it flatly will not go on in the US insane rampage of resourse grabbing. In fact, it is believed that all candidates in this coming election feel the same.
[/quote]

And you can justify expecting us to take you on the face of that statement in the absence of any supporting links in what way?

When did this become about resource grabbing? It was about Iran’s headlong tumble into producing nuclear weapons, was it not? Oh I forgot: the everpresent arbitrary raison d’etre for the war: oil. You have yet to give us a link to the Resolution taken to go to war. You have yet to even refer to it. And you expect us to take our oil pretext seriously justified by what logic?

As for my statement being wrong, see:

Canada threatens Iran with UN action on rights record

(Fri. 05 Aug 2005)

[quote=AndyF]As far as Saddam, he had a president as a friend who knew he was committing atrocities to the Kurds but decided that US agendas were more important than the Kurds. Which gives credence to the possibility that oil is the objective.
[/quote]

And which president would that be?

[quote=AndyF]If you want to take this to a religiuos level, then look up cases of hypocricy in the O/N Testament.
[/quote]

Faith and reason is enough for this little Catholic. Hypocricy impacts the justness of a war in what specific way? And by the way, since it was you who introduced the notion of taking this to a religious level, it falls on you to argue for religion and to give links to authoritative opinion on same.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.