So You Want to Have an INTELLIGENT Debate on Iran?

I don't think Lusty was being serious. After all this is a "hobby" board. It's all fun.

Who is going to print this thread out ....


............and send it to John Kerry for use in his next meeting?

The so called "snap-back" of the sanctions means if Iran violates the sanctions are "automatically" in place again. That's in the WH "wish list" of proposed elements of the so-called "framework" ... Based on rhetoric over the past week or so Iranian officials have stated they oppose any "snap-back" provision in any agreement, did not agree to any, and want the sanctions lifted immediately when the deal is signed.

A U.N. resolution is in place, which apparently has already been ignored and is being ignored. Here's what happens "internationally" ... during the Carter administration the U.S. imposed a grain embargo on the Soviets ... France bought the grain from the U.S. ... off loaded it onto French docks and on loaded it onto Russian ships. France just "flipped" the grain.

Once we vacate Afghanistan getting shit into and out of Iran will be easy for their partner-Russia. For the most part that's all Afghanistan has been in the region for 100's of years anyway is a "trading route" for neighbors.

The "devil" may be in the "details" but the implementation of the "details" has been proven to be problematic at best. It appears from the WH acknowledgment on the "wish list" of provisions, that Iran is so far ahead of where Iraq was in any WMD facilities and programs, as well as North Korea, that, as suggested in the article, inspections, verifications, and enforcements will be improbable, if not impossible, to conduct and/or implement.

Apparently from "hints" in the "wish list" (and from comments in the media from Iran) the Iranians want some sort of an "arbitration" type agreement to determine "violations." There is a suggestion in the media the Iranians want a prior agreed "burden of proof" with "judicial review" in an international court.....yet to be determined. Remember the White House is admitting the Iranians are 2-3 months away from developing a nuclear warhead with their existing program. How long have these "negotiations" been ongoing? Arbitration/Litigation takes years.

One does not agree to resolve a dispute with the potentials of this one by "agreeing" to litigate down the road to determine if there has been a violation by which to base the obtaining of "sanctions" against the party who wishes to "activate" the "potentials' against their neighbors. They don't care whether they die or not, we do. That's not a decent bargaining position. They are willing to do, we are not. They know it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Implementation of details is always problematic. This is not news. If they don't care whether they die or not, what's the point of it all? I still haven't gotten an answer as to why it's taken them so long to get a nuke. We got one in less than 5 years and we started from SCRATCH. Nobody had ever built one before. How you make a nuke is known. What are they waiting for? Netanyahu said in 92 that they would have one by 2000. It's 2015, where the fuck is it?

North Korea is every bit as batshit crazy as Iran. They have nukes. They haven't used them. They know it would be suicide if they did. Iran knows the same thing. Also, consider this; the US has 18 Ohio class submarines. They can carry up to 24 Trident missiles. Each missile can carry up to 12 thermonuclear warheads, each possessing 100 kiloton yield. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 16 kilotons. And each sub can carry up to 24 of these missiles with 12 warheads in each one. That's 288 warheads total. ALL with multiple times the force of the bombs that were dropped on Japan. If Iran gets a bomb and decides to use one, they'll only use it once. Iran is crazy, but they aren't stupid.

I don't think Lusty was being serious. After all this is a "hobby" board. It's all fun.

Who is going to print this thread out ....


............and send it to John Kerry for use in his next meeting? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Being the SoS, I'm going to bet he reads all the major papers. He's no doubt read the article.

Actually shammy, I lied. The article was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright. I changed the names to fuck with you. Now that you know that, do have anything intelligent to say about what they wrote? Originally Posted by lustylad

Yeaaaah nice try.

That's not a very intelligent comment, COG. But typical of you anyway. Nobody knows what "corporatist" or "statist" means. And as far as I can tell, nuclear weapons don't differentiate between owners and non-owners, or between elitists and egalitarians. Originally Posted by lustylad

Is anyone surprised? COIdiot uses Google translate from retard to english for everything he writes, so it's hard to make out what he's actually trying to say.

As much as I hate to say it, (and although I wouldn't use two words that don't even apply here), I have to agree, somewhat, with COIdiot. I don't know much about the other guy, but Kissinger is one of the biggest frauds and war-mongers to ever have been in our government. If ever you were looking for a stereotypical jew with a big nose sitting atop a pile of coins and counting them, well....you've found him.

He's authored mass civilian genocides in Pakistan, Laos, Vietnam and several other countries. He was one of the few who took communism vs capitalism way way too far. His policies to force democratically elected governments consequently lead to the murder of millions and the subjugation of many many others(this is probably what COIdiot meant by statist).
The power hungry moron had this to say about our military members:
"Military men are "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy."

You know what he had to say about old people? "the elderly are useless eaters".
Well, now that he's old, I say we kill him and send his body parts to the millions of families that he destroyed.

I know that you can pretty much put anyone dealing in foreign policy up on the stand and accuse them of murder, but Kissinger was something else. He was the modern-age reincarnation of Hitler.
As such, I don't give a fuck about anything this piss-bucket has to say.

Implementation of details is always problematic. This is not news. If they don't care whether they die or not, what's the point of it all? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You know that implementing details is problematic, but a lot of the people in this country don't realize it. It appears that one can magnify the problems with "inspecting" Iran by probably 10x's of that of Iraq. The Iraqi experience was ridiculous. My concern is that Iran will pull the trigger before we do, and at a minimum we will be the country doing the cleanup of the aftermath.

I would not assume they don't have a warhead already. Presuming they do is the prudent posture, as far as I am concerned. It is my understanding there are a couple of facilities off-limits to any "deal" or "inspections." I don't believe we can risk an assumption otherwise. And I think our negotiations out be conducted on that basis.

Gentlemen, I think it is far more simple than this article conveys.

Iran is a Muslim Theocracy that negotiates from a standpoint that Islam is the one true religion, and all other belief systems, whether they be based on secular or religious beliefs, should be either converted, or destroyed.

They really believe this shit. And no amount of reasonable negotiations will change that. To think that you can reach an agreement with with a Fascist State that is run by Religous Fanatics is beyond wishful thinking. It is that unique combination of Stupidity and Naiveté that permiates the Obama State Dept. Originally Posted by Jackie S

This right here is the is what kills me. Your first paragraph is dead on then you follow it with the summation that we cannot do anything about it and Obama is a fool crap.
Whats funny is somewhere in Iran there is a forum with one of the members saying the USA is a Christian theocracy that negotiates from a standpoint that Christians are the one true religion and all other beliefs...

What will it take for Republicans to accept that the world is never gonna be under one religion. Just as Christians freak out thinking that some other religion is gonna take over, others religions feel the same way. Its not a matter of right or wrong its a matter of perception.

You know that implementing details is problematic, but a lot of the people in this country don't realize it. It appears that one can magnify the problems with "inspecting" Iran by probably 10x's of that of Iraq. The Iraqi experience was ridiculous. My concern is that Iran will pull the trigger before we do, and at a minimum we will be the country doing the cleanup of the aftermath.

I would not assume they don't have a warhead already. Presuming they do is the prudent posture, as far as I am concerned. It is my understanding there are a couple of facilities off-limits to any "deal" or "inspections." I don't believe we can risk an assumption otherwise. And I think our negotiations out be conducted on that basis. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I've got to ask. What scares you so much about a nuclear Iran? Pakistan has nukes. So does North Korea. China as well. Russia and the US are the only ones who definitely have the nuclear triad. That refers to the number of delivery systems you have for the bomb. We have strategic bombers, ICBMs and Ballistic missiles from submarines. Sea, air and land. China is suspected to have it. And so is Israel. Of course Israel won't even openly admit to having nukes. But why does Iran suddenly frighten you? They have no delivery system capable of reaching us.

This is a portion of the report that I've linked below.

"Based on the “high technical capabilities” of the nuclear weapon states such as the U.S. and Russia, both gun-type and implosion-type devices can be made small enough to be delivered by missiles, while emerging weapon states with “low technical capability”, such as Iran, are currently unlikely to have the same technical sophistication to design compact warheads."

Even if they could design the bomb, there's no guarantee they could immediately have a way of delivering it. The portion below is contingent on the fact that they have modified their Shahab 3 missile to carry a bomb, which we don't know for certain.


"Iran’s Shahab 3 & 3M missiles which have a diameter of 125 cm and a range in excess of 900 km with a payload of 1,000 kg would be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to many of the Middle East capitals and high-value targets. Comparison of the potential ranges of the Iran Shahab missiles versus the Israeli Jericho 2 missile is made. It was found that if Iran launches the Shahab-3M from the Tabriz missile site, carrying a 20kt warhead, it can potentially reach Tel Aviv. Whereas Israel, can by launching a Jericho 2 missile from the north of Israel, reach Tehran.


They launch, Israel launches. Mutually assured destruction.

http://csis.org/publication/irans-nu...ery-capability

Why is Obama the only one that Russia is thumbing their nose at? That effects Europe more than it does the US. Why don't you consider them to be thumbing their nose at Germany? France? Or any of the other nations in these talks? Originally Posted by WombRaider

That's easy. Putin knows the pilots who will have to dodge the highly sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles he just approved for sale to Iran will be Americans and Israelis. They won't be German or French pilots. And you do know Russia is a party to the talks too, right? Putin obviously isn't thumbing his nose at himself. The Russians invented chess. Our hapless POTUS is being outplayed on the global chess board.

Imagine actually having to negotiate a deal with these people. Just take a second, if you can, and imagine that. The complexity of it is beyond anything you can imagine. I guarantee it. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You act like we haven't negotiated with them before. We have. You're just too young to remember how the Ayatollah wrapped Jimmy Carter around his pinky finger for 444 days during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980. They strung out the negotiations and humiliated Carter until his final day in office. They released the hostages minutes before Reagan was sworn in. We should know better than to expect them to negotiate in good faith or like just another rational state actor.


.

I've got to ask. What scares you so much about a nuclear Iran? ... why does Iran suddenly frighten you? They have no delivery system capable of reaching us. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Are you kidding me? How can anyone be so foolish and myopic to even ask this question? How can anyone sit back and shrug and say “What, me worry?” like Alfred E. Neuman at the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region on the entire planet? Go back and re-read the article:

Some of the chief actors in the Middle East... will insist on at least an equivalent capability... If the Middle East is “proliferated” and becomes host to a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear deterrence or strategic stability will international security be based? ... Previous thinking on nuclear strategy also assumed the existence of stable state actors. Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of non-state proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment? ... What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail? Originally Posted by lustylad

Perhaps you should ask the residents of Dubai or Riyadh or Cairo if they are as sanguine as you are at the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran. And if you don't care about their opinions because you think living in Fortress America means we are safe, since Iran has no delivery system YET (you fail to mention their aggressive North Korea-assisted missile development program, which isn't even on the table in the current talks), then try using a little imagination like RedLeg did in another thread:

Let's try this thought experiment... Iran builds a nuke or two. They announce to the world that while being transported, unknown heavily armed bandits struck the convoy and took one of the weapons and got away. Then... the stolen nuke is smuggled aboard a tramp freighter in some other country so that they bypass any satellite surveillance of Iranian ports, and that unknown rust bucket tramp freighter sails into a US harbor... say New York Harbor. Do you think the terrorists supported and paid by Iran couldn't find a willing "suicide bomber" that would be thrilled to have the "honor" of pushing the button to detonate the nuke in the harbor. What do you suppose the death count would be? How many millions? And since there's no ballistic missile track... who would we retaliate against? Iran for "losing" the nuke? What action, if any would a US president... especially Obama take against Iran if such a thing happened?

Do you seriously think such a thing could not POSSIBLY happen once Iran has nukes? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

The real question isn't why does a nuclear Iran frighten me? The real question is why DOESN'T it frighten you? Anyone whose eyes are not glued shut can see that nothing good will come from it and there is a very high probability it will lead to catastrophe.

.

This right here is the is what kills me. Your first paragraph is dead on then you follow it with the summation that we cannot do anything about it and Obama is a fool crap.
Whats funny is somewhere in Iran there is a forum with one of the members saying the USA is a Christian theocracy that negotiates from a standpoint that Christians are the one true religion and all other beliefs...

What will it take for Republicans to accept that the world is never gonna be under one religion. Just as Christians freak out thinking that some other religion is gonna take over, others religions feel the same way. Its not a matter of right or wrong its a matter of perception. Originally Posted by slingblade

I did not say Iran was a religious "Theocracy", I said "Thugocracy". By that, it means if you do not toe the line, they can, and will, put you against the wall.
The Mullas are just another incarnation of Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Muhammad, and every other Despot that has subjugated people throughout History.

We don't do that.

Are you kidding me? How can anyone be so foolish and myopic to even ask this question? How can anyone sit back and shrug and say “What, me worry?” like Alfred E. Neuman at the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region on the entire planet? Go back and re-read the article:





Perhaps you should ask the residents of Dubai or Riyadh or Cairo if they are as sanguine as you are at the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran. And if you don't care about their opinions because you think living in Fortress America means we are safe, since Iran has no delivery system YET (you fail to mention their aggressive North Korea-assisted missile development program, which isn't even on the table in the current talks), then try using a little imagination like RedLeg did in another thread:




The real question isn't why does a nuclear Iran frighten me? The real question is why DOESN'T it frighten you? Anyone whose eyes are not glued shut can see that nothing good will come from it and there is a very high probability it will lead to catastrophe.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

First, we'll address his scenario. I think it's possible. I don't think it's probable. There's a lot of open ocean between here and there. I think it's worst-case scenario.

I'll ask the question again that no one seems to answer; why don't they have one yet? The technology is widely disseminated at this point. They have been at it for YEARS. And they still don't have one. I just think we're putting the cart before the horse here in terms of being THAT fearful when they've shown us nothing at this point. A russian separatist group could have stolen a nuke and carried out redleg's plot by now. Why haven't they? Because I think you guys have been watching too many movies. It's not as easy as Hollywood makes it look for a rogue agent to just get a bomb.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ste...lear-bomb1.htm


http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/po...-nuclear-bomb/

As I said, it's possible, but not very probable.

I did not say Iran was a religious "Theocracy", I said "Thugocracy". By that, it means if you do not toe the line, they can, and will, put you against the wall.
The Mullas are just another incarnation of Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Muhammad, and every other Despot that has subjugated people throughout History.

We don't do that. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Saudi Arabia is hardline. We seem to get along with them when it's beneficial. They claim the koran as their constitution. Mecca and Medina are the two most important cities in Islam. Their law requires all citizens to be Muslims. They have a religious police force that goes around enforcing islamic codes. If we can get along with THIS, why is seeing us get along with Iran so hard to picture?

That's not a very intelligent comment, COG. But typical of you anyway. Nobody knows what "corporatist" or "statist" means. And as far as I can tell, nuclear weapons don't differentiate between owners and non-owners, or between elitists and egalitarians. Originally Posted by lustylad

Those are polite terms for fascists, totalitarians, and other purveyors of tyranny. Iran is not going to drop the Bomb on anyone. The "threat" is a red herring designed to coerce us into handing over more freedom, and to continue the transfer of wealth from the middle class to Wall Street and the defense industry.

Those are polite terms for fascists, totalitarians, and other purveyors of tyranny. Iran is not going to drop the Bomb on anyone. The "threat" is a red herring designed to coerce us into handing over more freedom, and to continue the transfer of wealth from the middle class to Wall Street and the defense industry. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I also am under the impression it's bullshit. If they really wanted a bomb they could have just purchased one at this point. What's taking so long? It's like the person who keeps threatening to do something and never does. After awhile you just stop paying attention to the bullshit. They have missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. Why, if that is their end goal, aren't they firing them as we speak? Iran has enough oil to last about 100 more years, if no new oil is found. At some point the spigot will run dry.

I think they want to be relevant in the region, nothing more. They're like the child crying out for attention.

They've had a nuclear program for a LONG time. If they truly want a bomb, what is taking so long? Originally Posted by WombRaider

I still haven't gotten an answer as to why it's taken them so long to get a nuke. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I'll ask the question again that no one seems to answer; why don't they have one yet? They have been at it for YEARS. And they still don't have one. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You did get an answer before, but you chose to ignore it. There are many likely reasons they haven't tested a bomb yet. At this point they are reportedly 3 months away if they choose to proceed. Here is the answer I gave you in another thread:

Surely you saw the news reports that the Saudis intend to purchase nukes from Pakistan if Iran gets the bomb. The Saudis won't rely on anyone else's nuclear umbrella and it would take them too long to build their own bomb. So their best strategic option is to buy what they need from Pakistan. The Iranians have to worry about this. It's one reason why Iran hasn't made an overt “break-out” dash for the bomb yet. Originally Posted by lustylad

Iran is what is called a “threshold nuclear state”. They have the capability in place but haven't started making bombs (as far as we know). They are biding their time while trying to get the sanctions lifted. Now isn't a good time to cross the threshold. What is your point anyway? Why do you keep making a big deal out of this? They are just as dangerous as a threshold nuclear state. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking to them. The tragic truth of the matter is we should not have let their program advance this far in the first place. When the day comes that we can no longer pretend it is not a huge threat to world peace and stability, it will be much harder for us to take it out.

.