U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003

[Hedgehog]

I view this is as a discussion, not a debate. 

I can say I don't have enough information, because I don't have enough information.     It looks like the nuclear issue is contained.  I don't know enough about weapons being provided to insurgents and what the appropriate response should be.  Whatever we can do to stop it, if it's still happening, is what needs to be done.  If you're asking precisely what that action should be, I'll tell you again I don't know.   

I'll talk to some of my military friends about it and see what they say.   

I definitely think Iran needs to be pursued further, and tightly checked.

Just like IAEA has flagged for all along.

But Bush Administration making claims that turns out to be untrue, may actually hurt the chances to get a dialogue going with Iran, or prevent the UN from taking proper measures.

It's very unfortunate that the Bush Administration once again seems to have bit of a little more than they could chew.

But bottom line is that Iran needs to be convinced, in one way or another, to not pursue "nucelear" weapons.

IMO that way should be diplomatic.

[Decker]

So we have identified and eliminated the source of Iranian weapons to insurgents? 

We have eliminated a source.

At least I'm honest enough to admit that.

Why does the Bush Adm and its supporters believe that the weapons could only come from Iran?  The facts just aren't there to support that belief.  Seems like a disengenuous argument to me...even along the lines of propaganda.

[Dos Equis]

I definitely think Iran needs to be pursued further, and tightly checked.

Just like IAEA has flagged for all along.

But Bush Administration making claims that turns out to be untrue, may actually hurt the chances to get a dialogue going with Iran, or prevent the UN from taking proper measures.

It's very unfortunate that the Bush Administration once again seems to have bit of a little more than they could chew.

But bottom line is that Iran needs to be convinced, in one way or another, to not pursue "nucelear" weapons.

IMO that way should be diplomatic.

I tend to think gunboat diplomacy will probably be the most effective way to deal with Iran.  Having a bunch of troops right across their border helps. 

[Dos Equis]

We have eliminated a source.

At least I'm honest enough to admit that.

Why does the Bush Adm and its supporters believe that the weapons could only come from Iran?  The facts just aren't there to support that belief.  Seems like a disengenuous argument to me...even along the lines of propaganda.

Maybe they are only coming from Iran.  Maybe they are coming from multiple countries (what one of my friends believes).  But I've only heard military commanders talk about weapons coming from Iran.  I don't think that's propaganda. 

[Dos Equis]

Talked to my friend about this yesterday.  He has been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan.  He believes there are weapons coming from Iran and other places.  That the Iranian government is giving a wink and nod, but probably doesn't have Iranian government officials overseeing weapons distribution.  That it may be impossible to isolate the source of these weapons and take them out. 

[Decker]

Talked to my friend about this yesterday.  He has been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan.  He believes there are weapons coming from Iran and other places.  That the Iranian government is giving a wink and nod, but probably doesn't have Iranian government officials overseeing weapons distribution.  That it may be impossible to isolate the source of these weapons and take them out. 

The problem is that the weapons coming from the black market in the middle east are being attributed to Iran by our US government which looks like it wants a military strike against Iran and an excuse to do that attack.

[Dos Equis]

The problem is that the weapons coming from the black market in the middle east are being attributed to Iran by our US government which looks like it wants a military strike against Iran and an excuse to do that attack.

They're being attributed to Iran because it is likely some weapons are coming from Iran. 

[Decker]

They're being attributed to Iran because it is likely some weapons are coming from Iran. 

Some probably are and some definitely are not.  The IED manufacturing plant found in Iraq bears that out.  I'm certain that the insurgents also have British and American weapons.  Does that mean that those countries are arming the insurgents?  Of course not.

The rhetorical techniques of attributing Iran as an active supplier of weapons to insurgents (now called "Al Qaeda" almost exclusively) are used for the purpose of dumbing down the facts to paint Iran as a viable and pressing military target for US forces.

[Dos Equis]

Some probably are and some definitely are not.  The IED manufacturing plant found in Iraq bears that out.  I'm certain that the insurgents also have British and American weapons.  Does that mean that those countries are arming the insurgents?  Of course not.

The rhetorical techniques of attributing Iran as an active supplier of weapons to insurgents (now called "Al Qaeda" almost exclusively) are used for the purpose of dumbing down the facts to paint Iran as a viable and pressing military target for US forces.

I see a distinction between weapons that originated in the U.S. or Britain that made their way through arms dealers to insurgents and elements working within Iran to actively supply insurgents.  Based on what I've heard, there is probably nothing we can do about it, but it is definitely a problem for our troops. 

[Decker]

I see a distinction between weapons that originated in the U.S. or Britain that made their way through arms dealers to insurgents and elements working within Iran to actively supply insurgents.  Based on what I've heard, there is probably nothing we can do about it, but it is definitely a problem for our troops. 

Do you see that same distinction with Iran and the area's black market arms dealers?

As a practical matter, I'm pretty sure that iranian citizens are helping out/arming Iraqis that are Shia but that's not government sponsored.

What if there is a faction of the Iranian government that is arming insurgents without the official blessings of the entire Iranian government--like a rogue faction?  How does the US handle that?

Conceptually, I just described the Iran/Contra Affair.

[Dos Equis]

Do you see that same distinction with Iran and the area's black market arms dealers?

As a practical matter, I'm pretty sure that iranian citizens are helping out/arming Iraqis that are Shia but that's not government sponsored.

What if there is a faction of the Iranian government that is arming insurgents without the official blessings of the entire Iranian government--like a rogue faction?  How does the US handle that?

Conceptually, I just described the Iran/Contra Affair.

I think the difference is the Iranian government knows what is going on and is probably working behind the scenes to facilitate arms distribution to insurgents.  But as I indicated, there is probably nothing we can do about it. 

It does sound similar to Iran/Contra. 

[Decker]

I think the difference is the Iranian government knows what is going on and is probably working behind the scenes to facilitate arms distribution to insurgents.  But as I indicated, there is probably nothing we can do about it. 

...

President Bush has already had the Iranian Revolutionary Guard labeled a terrorist organization b/c the alleged arming of insurgents.  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/115226

That's a tangible step towards attacking Iran.

[Dos Equis]

President Bush has already had the Iranian Revolutionary Guard labeled a terrorist organization b/c the alleged arming of insurgents.  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/115226

That's a tangible step towards attacking Iran.

Decker let's assume what he said back in February is true.  What do you think we should do about it? 

[240 is Back]

If China had overthrown the Mexican and Canadian govt, you'd damn well better BELIEVE we'd be giving guns to the mex and can people fighting them.

(recall that iran sits smack dab between afghanistan and iraq)

[Decker]

Decker let's assume what he said back in February is true.  What do you think we should do about it? 

I would withdraw the troops from Iraq tomorrow and let the free market take over in Iraq in all facets--political, economic and social.

Removing the instigating cause of all this trouble over there would do the trick.  

Anything else lends credibility to the US's Iraqi disaster.  And it is a disaster for the lives ruined, the dead and displaced, and almost zero political progress in turning an ethnically distinct dictatorship into a model of Jeffersonian democracy.

[240 is Back]

I would withdraw the troops from Iraq tomorrow and let the free market take over in Iraq in all facets--political, economic and social.

Removing the instigating cause of all this trouble over there would do the trick.  

Anything else lends credibility to the US's Iraqi disaster.  And it is a disaster for the lives ruined, the dead and displaced, and almost zero political progress in turning an ethnically distinct dictatorship into a model of Jeffersonian democracy.

We own contracts to 80% of Iraqi oil, forever.
Why would we leave that $ behind?

We have what, 15 bases there, that we now admit are permanent.
Why lose that advantage in that region?

Deck, I agree that they assfvcked the intel and lied to the world and us to get this war.  But the war reparations they are paying in the form of contracts and base permissions forever - those are global advantages we have to keep.  No president would walk away from that.  I sure wouldn't.  yes - it was illegal and immoral that we stole it.  We did.  WE stole it.  But now that we have it, we gotta keep it or someone else will steal it. 

[Decker]

We own contracts to 80% of Iraqi oil, forever.
Why would we leave that $ behind?

We have what, 15 bases there, that we now admit are permanent.
Why lose that advantage in that region?

Deck, I agree that they assfvcked the intel and lied to the world and us to get this war.  But the war reparations they are paying in the form of contracts and base permissions forever - those are global advantages we have to keep.  No president would walk away from that.  I sure wouldn't.  yes - it was illegal and immoral that we stole it.  We did.  WE stole it.  But now that we have it, we gotta keep it or someone else will steal it. 

I understand your point.  I also agree with your former point about, how if it were the US/Mex/China, we would be arming the Mexicans.

We knew back in the 1960s that oil would never be a longterm energy solution.  But the vested interests wanted to ride the oil train to the last drop.

The US could still start a national alternative energy program on par with the space program of the 60s and the race to the moon.

Now b/c of the greed of a plutocratic few and the general lethargy/malaise of the public, I am supposed to accept murder and theft as a reasonable response to our energy needs.

I won't do that.  And I won't accept the idea that our fossil fuel based economy is a determined path that we must walk with no alternative.

Expediency is on your side 240.   

[Dos Equis]

I would withdraw the troops from Iraq tomorrow and let the free market take over in Iraq in all facets--political, economic and social.

Removing the instigating cause of all this trouble over there would do the trick.  

Anything else lends credibility to the US's Iraqi disaster.  And it is a disaster for the lives ruined, the dead and displaced, and almost zero political progress in turning an ethnically distinct dictatorship into a model of Jeffersonian democracy.

That's one alternative.  Part of me wishes we could immediately bring everyone home, but an immediate withdrawal might result in genocide.

Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out.  But I doubt we can prove this.  

[240 is Back]

That's one alternative.  Part of me wishes we could immediately bring everyone home, but an immediate withdrawal might result in genocide.

I don't believe we care about that.  I don't.  Do you?

Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out.  But I doubt we can prove this.   

Agreed we're never leaving.  And even if they are supplying them with arms, "taking them out" isn't pushing a few buttons and flinging some tomahawks at them.  It's declaring war on a nation with 70 mil people, a shitlod of money and oil, and treaties with Russia and Iran.  And, they could shut down the gulf in 5 minutes if they wanted and spike oil to $400 a barrel and cripple us. 

[Dos Equis]

I don't believe we care about that.  I don't.  Do you?

Agreed we're never leaving.  And even if they are supplying them with arms, "taking them out" isn't pushing a few buttons and flinging some tomahawks at them.  It's declaring war on a nation with 70 mil people, a shitlod of money and oil, and treaties with Russia and Iran.  And, they could shut down the gulf in 5 minutes if they wanted and spike oil to $400 a barrel and cripple us. 

Yes I care about genocide. 

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but no one said any military operation would be simple. 

[240 is Back]

You said:

"Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out."

We cannot just "take out" an army backed by a govt the size of Iran.  Do you agree or disagree?

[Decker]

Does anyone know if Halliburton is still doing business with Iran?

Halliburton Doing Business With the 'Axis of Evil'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html

I don't think it is?

[Dos Equis]

You said:

"Since we're never leaving, however, if we were able to prove the Quds Force is supplying insurgents we should take them out."

We cannot just "take out" an army backed by a govt the size of Iran.  Do you agree or disagree?

I stand by what I said.  Also, I don't know how big the Quds Force is, so I cannot say precisely what would be involved in taking them out, blowing up supply lines, etc.  As I already stated more than once, we probably aren't going to be able to prove this link, isolate the source, and eliminate it anyway.  So what's your point?   

[240 is Back]

we could easily provide proof weapons were coming from iran.  I thought it had already been established to a small degree.

my point is that you don't just 'take out' an army like that.  they'll splinter the secnod the first missile launches and you'll have 2000 small guerilla armies attacking us across the border.  it'd be a clisterfvck, and we'd be fighing it with oil prices 5 times higher.  no way to win that.