I’m sure many of you will hear this on the news once the word gets out, since this is big news, but here it is anyway:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/14/iran.nuclear/
Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment
Sunday, November 14, 2004 Posted: 3:17 PM EST (2017 GMT)
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) – Iran has agreed to fully suspend its uranium enrichment program, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Hasan Rohani announced Sunday, a move that could improve Iran’s relations with the West.
But why should we believe them? North Korea made similar promises …
We can only believe it once actual inspectors are there doing real inspections.
But the whole notion of inspections presupposes that the Iranians will be honest, i.e. that they will voluntarily show the inspectors all the places they should be looking. Why would they do that?
The only way to eliminate Iran as a threat is to destroy the Islamic regime and replace it with one that tolerates a permanent American military presence.
The only way to eliminate Iran as a threat is to destroy the Islamic regime and replace it with one that tolerates a permanent American military presence.
I doubt think many people here disagree with that.
Anyways, when talking inspections, is it naive of me to assume they would have surprise dates and all areas would be open to inspectors? I wouldn’t call anything else inspections if it didn’t go that far.
Didn’t we just go through 12 yrs of this whole “inspection” routine with Iraq?
A small group of inspectors wandering around a very large and only minimally cooperative country cannot possibly hope to find everything that country deliberately hides.
Plus how long will it take before the inspections are relaxed and Iran goes back to trying to build nukes? That was Saddam’s plan and he came very close to succeeding.
While this would be good news if we were to take it at face value…:
I don’t believe them.
They have already done enough to justify being overthrown, regardless of what they do with nuclear power.
I’m sure they’re still on the Administration’s list (the regime takedown list).
From what I have heard, this regime still actively cultivates hatred for America and certainly means us harm. I just think they are smart enough not to openly cross us outside their borders, given what has happened to others who have. The best we can hope for in Iran is a peaceful transition away from the “Death to America” axis, courtesy of whatever sensible, educated populace still remains there.
This isn’t to imply they are not a massive threat, or that their previous attacks on America have been erased. But, if it is true about the nukes, then it makes us safer in the future.
Well, regardless of whether they’re lying, you can let go of any hope you may have of President Bush ousting the current regime in Iran.
He can’t rely on the argument of WMD’s because his credibility on that count was destroyed by the fact that there seems to have been no WMD’s in Iraq at the time of the invasion up to now. He’ll have an almost too difficult time convincing the American public that it won’t be the same kind of bloody, chaotic mess that Iraq is, either.
Had the Iraq war been an instant success, the public might have been more open to the idea of replacing the Iranian regime.
I doubt think many people here disagree with that.
I am one who disagrees. I do not want the cost involved in a “permanent American military presence.” For many years I have said the “way to eliminate Iran as a threat” is to bomb it into oblivion – obliterate it, destroy it, wipe it out. And in doing so we should tell the world that this is what will happen to any country that supports and harbors terrorists who seek to kill us. That way not only do we not have to worry about Iran as a threat, but we also may not have to worry about terrorists elsewhere for a long, long time.
You’re right, Stephen. If we destroy it, we won’t have to guard it.
Who controls Iran after it is destroyed? What will they do with it?
Also, what about countries which are formally states but include specific tribes, parishes, neighborhoods, mini-states that are the real source of terror within the country?
In other words what do you think of the “failed-states” threat in relation to terrorism? Is there even such a thing?
A little more information: Iran is only suspending its nuclear program temporarily; it did not agree to give it up entirely. The threat is still very real.
Also, USN&WR has a cover story called “The Iran Connection: secret CIA and Pentagon documents reveal new intelligence on who’s behind the trouble in Iraq.” If Iran is aiding the anti-US insurgency in Iraq, we should respond decisively. I’m not sure I would support wiping out the whole country, but certainly targeted stikes on major government, military, and nuclear facilities would be appropriate.
Who controls Iran after it is destroyed? What will they do with it?
Frankly, I do not care. America’s job is not to clean up every cesspool in the world. In relation to the rest of the world, our job, first and foremost, is to protect American citizens. The terrorists want to kill us and we need to show them and the world that, if they choose force, then we are the biggest, baddest, and best that there is. This is war – let the entire world know that we will obliterate any country that supports terrorists and harbors those who are determined to harm us. I say give them one chance to stop their support and give up the terrorists, and if they do not do so promptly then strike a blow so devastating to their population and infrastructure that the rest of the world will think twice before they ever support or harbor terrorists again. For too long we have appeased the rest of the world; we need to take so strong and unequivocal a stand that the entire world will tremble before they support those who would do us harm.
I did not see the TV show The West Wing until after some time of its running, and the first episode I saw set the standard for all that followed. These words from the President in one episode of that show beautifully express just what I think and feel.
“Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the earth unharmed, cloaked only in the words “Civis Romanis” I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens. Where was Morris’ protection, or anyone else on that plane? Where is the retribution for the families and where is the warning to the rest of the world that Americans shall walk this earth unharmed, lest the clenched fist of the most mighty military force in the history of mankind comes crashing down on your house!?”
The United States is a more moral country than was Rome ever was, which is even more reason to let the world know that they should never mess with us.
Stephen, you’ve made your point abundantly clear, but taking down governments that support terrorists will only remove the conventional threat; if a government of individual rights doesn’t replace it, we can only assume that the “cesspool” you’re leaving behind will be used to the advantage of our enemies.
Stephen, you’ve made your point abundantly clear, but taking down governments that support terrorists will only remove the conventional threat; if a government of individual rights doesn’t replace it, we can only assume that the “cesspool” you’re leaving behind will be used to the advantage of our enemies.
I’m not sure what you mean by “conventional threat,” but the point I made was not just about taking down a government, it was also about causing major population damage. Let the people know, whatever the form of their government, that they cannot support and harbor terrorists if they want to survive. It would certainly be great if the entire middle-east was replaced with rights-respecting governments, but it is highly debatable whether or not with the deeply-ingrained philosophy that permeates those cultures, that a rights-respecting government could even be sustained. Regardless, that is not our problem; the point is to show the world that their survival depends on rooting out terrorists who threaten us, and leave the rest to them.
I’m not sure what you mean by “conventional threat,” . . . Let the people know, whatever the form of their government, that they cannot support and harbor terrorists if they want to survive.
By conventional threat, I mean an organized body (a government) that indirectly harms us by supporting terrorists. Mass bombing will take care of this quite well, but the terrorists themselves could take advantage of the state of anarchy that erupts afterwards.
I’m not sure what you mean by “conventional threat,” but the point I made was not just about taking down a government, it was also about causing major population damage. Let the people know, whatever the form of their government, that they cannot support and harbor terrorists if they want to survive.
But that assumes the people can freely choose their government, which is not the case in Iran. “causing major population damage” would just encourage the survivors to hate us even more. I think the only real choices are to take out the government and replace it with a better one, or to just kill every Muslim and/or Arab on the planet.
By conventional threat, I mean an organized body (a government) that indirectly harms us by supporting terrorists. Mass bombing will take care of this quite well, but the terrorists themselves could take advantage of the state of anarchy that erupts afterwards.
I think you may be missing the main point. We take one country which is a seat of terrorism and wreak such devastation upon them that other countries realize if they want to survive they will have to root the terrorists out from their midsts. For years now we have been operating under the premise of a proportional response, and it is that premise which has made possible the continued growth of terrorism. Let the world know that if they kill one American, we destroy an entire city. Show them that we mean it by giving some seat of terrorism one chance to root the terrorists out; if not, destroy them. No more proportional response. The rest of the terrorist-supporting countries will get the idea.
Perhaps destroying Medina and threatening to destroy Mecca would be a good way to stop the Islamofascist terrorists.