Bill Clinton had Arafat how many times to the White House?

Arafat WAS a terrorist. And Clinton not only coddled him, he treated him as a head of state and had him to the White House more times than just about everyone outside of Monica Lewinsky.

The real question is, "was Bill Clinton an American President"?

He certainly did not follow the "long standing" policy. Not only did he negotiate with one, but he bent over backwards for him.

Should we negotiate with them?

No.

That's why we should keep the Clintons, and their minions from the predatory legal world and the far left, out of the White House by any and all means.

Well, we are obviuosly, as a nation, talking out of both sides of our mouths here- we won't talk to them about Iraq or anything- but we will participate and cooperate with them when we perform "extrodinary rendition"- we have nothing to talk to them about peace, but we are all buddy buddy when we want to torture someone (Syria, Arar),

So, bottom line is, we ALREADY deal with people we call "terrorists"- in fact we do some pretty nasty biz with them.

We “deal” with everyone and always have under every administration – from Hitler, Stalin and all the rest. What’s the point? If you have proof we or the Syrians “tortured” anyone please post it and not the speculation.

The Dems want to “negotiate” with Iran over Iraq. The biggest supporter of terrorism n the world and we need to ask them to “help” us in Iraq??? How stupid can we be. They do little but help themselves and feel free to ignore the UN and the rest of the world – but they will “help us” in Iraq??? Ya RIGHT.

I say we do more of what we are doing today in “negotiating” with Iran and that is tell them clearly that when you send people into Iraq to support the terrorists or with the triggers that set off the IEDs (most are made in Iran) we will KILL anyone we can doing it. Do you realize that without the electronic triggers for the IEDs that are just old worthless bombs?

While Hitler and Stalin ruled with terror; I do not believe they were terrorists.


I'm sure you have proof that Iran is the "biggest supporter of terrorism in the world"? And, yes, I think we will need to negotiate with Iran whether we like it or not. It's a bitter pill, I know.


If a group uses IEDs against military targets, then they are not terrorists: they are insurgents. The US ought to be interdicting this stuff as much as possible. But, if we're going to start with the moral outrage over the source of military hardware used against various parties in war zones, then the first place we should look is ourselves.

Proof – tons of it. And I do want to negotiate with them and we ARE. We have told them if we catch them meddling in Iraq there will be ‘consequences”’. We have asked them to not enrich uranium for nukes and they have essentially told us to go to hell (with the UN etc.) So what more should we do? Send Maddline Notbright over to help them with the nukes – like we did with North Korea under BILL.

• Does Iran sponsor terrorism?
Yes. The U.S. State Department has called Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere. In March 2006, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#2

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=9800


London, Feb. 27 – Iran Focus has obtained a list of 20 terrorist camps and centres run by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

The names and details of the training centres were provided by a defector from the IRGC, who has recently left Iran and now lives in hiding in a neighbouring country. Iran Focus agreed to keep his identity secret for obvious security reasons.

The former IRGC officer said the camps and the training centres were under the control of the IRGC’s elite Qods Force, the extra-territorial arm of the Revolutionary Guards.

“The Qods Force has an extensive network that uses the facilities of Iranian embassies or cultural and economic missions or a number of religious institutions such as the Islamic Communications and Culture Organisation to recruit radical Islamists in Muslim countries or among the Muslims living in the West. After going through preliminary training and security checks in those countries, the recruits are then sent to Iran via third countries and end up in one of the Qods Force training camps”, the officer said.

The Imam Ali Garrison has been a long-time training ground for foreign terrorist operatives. Presently, some 50 Islamists from neighbouring Arab countries are receiving training there in five groups of 10, the officer said.

“Iraq followed by the Palestinian territories have become the focal point of the Qods Force’s activities




I don’t care if you call them boy scouts sir. The Iranians are supporting AQ and the insurgents with the electronics used to kill Americans. That makes them an enemy – don’t you agree???

I doubt that Iran feels very threatened by the "consequences". As Iran sees it, it has a right to enrich uranium whether the US or the UN or IAEA has asked them not to. There ought to be some serious incentives for them to stop enriching because the disincentives (such as threats) clearly don't work. But, ultimately, I think Iran will build nukes (maybe in 10 years). We need to accept this reality and work from there.


I know Iran has sponsored terrorism. I was looking for better information than the State Department's assertion that it is the most active sponsor of terrorism. Perhaps, a comparison to other state sponsors or a break down of funding or something that has real empirical backing to it?



No, it makes Iran an arms dealer: perhaps, an unethical arms dealer but an arms dealer nonetheless. Ted, I understand the moral argument you're trying to make here and I applaud it. But, arms dealing is in that gray area and certainly the US crosses that line with frequency. Unless you're being a moral relativist, I just wonder if you're prepared for its implication.

They feel little threat buy remember the country signed up to the NP Treaty and the sanctions hurt – the incentive to not doing it is the withdrawal of sanctions.
January 24, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Hints are emerging in Tehran that Iranians of various political persuasions are trying to put the brakes on firebrand President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.


Iran was recently placed under limited United Nations sanctions because of its refusal to stop uranium enrichment, and the president has responded with a barrage of criticism of the UN and the West.
Some analysts think Iranian politicians might rein in Ahmadinejad, and distance him from the country's controversial nuclear program, in case the UN imposes broader sanctions that could devastate Iran's economy.
"The issue is what the supreme leader will do. I think [that] in the first instance, they will just try to contain and control him."
It is too early to say whether populist Ahmadinejad is losing the confidence of Iran's political classes. But there are several concrete developments that could indicate a desire to restrain excesses and perceived policy errors since he
sanctions


But the EU, which does lots of $$$ with Iran is resisting: as expected

WASHINGTON: European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/30/news/sanctions.php





Hey ask Nancy P. Or look it up – there are thousands of documents and articles.






They are more than “arms dealing” - men and material are coming across the border to give support to our enemies with the full support and sanction of the Iranian government loqophage.


WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons.
Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia


Yes I think you may be correct. We did nothing when NK got them (we helped them in BC admin) and now it looks like we will do nothing here. So lets get the missile shield up soon and the threat of nuclear war goes up every day.

Yeah, they did sign up for the NPT. However, they are allowed under the NPT to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The issue is that we don't believe that is what they are doing and thus new sanctions were imposed.


I do find this somewhat hopeful. But, Iran's nuclear program is far larger than Ahmadinejad's political career. Stopping Ahmadinejad will have little affect on Iran's nuclear ambitions.


Keep in mind that while the US imports no Iranian oil, the EU imports lots of it. Of course, the EU is going to be tentative here. I'm sure that if the roles were reversed, then the US would do the same.


If there's no empirical evidence provided, then I cannot buy into the premise. Sorry.



So, weapons and training flows directly from the US to Nicaragua...I mean, El Salvador...I mean, Chile...I mean, Columbia... Oh, no, I meant weapons/training from Iran to Iraq.
Are you really being a moral relativist or are you taking a stand against all arms dealing/training?


If a missile shield could solve the problem of someone transporting a nuke by land or sea, then I'm all for it. If only it were that simple.

No one believes it including the UN – and they sure as hell don’t need 3,000 centrifuges for fuel for a plant – which by the way they don’t have and for which we have offered fuel. So their ambitions are clear and a violation and hopefully the EU will not undermine the sanctions and defeat them. I have no trust in France of course. \



I doubt it. What could be more dangerous for the “world oil market” than a nuclear Iran that says Israel should not exist and has missiles capable of reaching Televiv???



Fine if head in sand works for you great. How about testimony from Brookings? Better?

PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
KENNETH M. POLLACK
SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
THE SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY
AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
September 29, 2005
THE THREAT FROM IRAN
r. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the
privilege to come before you today to discuss the threat posed by the Islamic
Republic of Iran to the interests of the United States of America. As President
Ahmedi-Nejad’s recent speech at the United Nations made clear, key Iranian leaders
remain hostile to the United States and to the West; they have refused to embrace the
norms of the international community; they are determined to overturn the status quo;
and we must be prepared for them to pursue all of these goals with the same mix of
rhetoric, diplomacy, bullying, subversion, and terrorism that they employed throughout
the 1980s and ‘90s. Moreover, as we are all too aware, we must consider the possibility
that at some point in the not too distant future, Iran will be able to back its aggressive
policies with a nuclear deterrent, unless they are somehow prevented from doing so or
convinced to desist from this effort.

The Nuclear Clock
Iran has been a troublesome state for the West since the Iranian revolution of
1978 deposed the Western-oriented Shah, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi. Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini, who emerged eventually as the unchallenged leader of revolutionary Iran,
preached a messianic form of Shi’i Islam that he conceived as waging a continuous
struggle against the forces of evil, which he associated with the infidel West, and
particularly with its leader, the United States of America. Since that time, Iranian leaders
have frequently defined their foreign policy as being inimical to the West, or at least to
the United States, and have carried on an aggressive struggle against it. Obviously, that
struggle has taken a wide variety of forms, and at times Iranian leaders have shown a
willingness to ratchet down the level of confrontation. At no time, however, have
Western relations with Iran been trouble free.
Today, the greatest concern of the United States and many other Western
governments regarding Iran is rightly its pursuit of a fissile-material production
capability, which many believe is intended to give Tehran the capability to produce
nuclear weapons. Typically, there is no “smoking gun” proving Iranian intentions. What
is now beyond dispute, however—thanks to the findings of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and subsequent admissions by the Iranian government—is that
Iran seeks to acquire all elements of a uranium enrichment fuel cycle (including the
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:S6_PV3...t=clnk&cd=2



I love this ludicrous liberal argument. We did something in the past (for any reason) and that somehow makes it ok for ANYONE to do the same and KILL Americans. The arms and triggers for IEDs come from IRAN and the government sanctions it. We should not allow it to happen. Hey we dropped a nuke on Japan so I guess you feel it will be just fine if Iran nukes NY???? Get serious sir.

And of course your statement – “If a missile shield could solve the problem of someone transporting a nuke by land or sea, then I'm all for it. If only it were that simple.” Makes my point. Iran with nukes is not good for anyone especially the US and Israel.

Agreed. Still, the NPT is not the stick to use for this.


Hmm.... I suppose I could think of things more dangerous. And you're not getting any argument from me that Iran with nukes is not a good thing. But, Iran will have nukes. Complaining about it will do little.


Thanks for the link. But, this doesn't prove that Iran is the most active exporter of terrorism in the world. I have never argued that Iran doesn't export terrorism.


I think you missed my point entirely (you seem so wrapped up in calling me a liberal...heh). The point I was making is not that because we did it, Iran should be allowed to do it. No, quite the opposite. The point is that if it is morally wrong for Iran to do it, then it must be morally wrong for anyone to do it (including ourselves). However, if one is a moral relativist, then of course the morals for one country's behavior need not be held to the same standards as another country's behavior. Are you or are you not a moral relativist, Ted?

And you miss my point with the argument. We did things during the cold war that, in hindsight, may have not been great decisions. How would any of that change our reaction to a country that would love to kill all of us and has said so.

I am more of the moral realism school. The reality in this situation seems relatively clear don’t you think?

Iran sees itself as a bitter enemy of the US and Israel. THEY deal in moral absolutes. We are the Devil and they are God’s chosen. Killing millions of us, for them, would be a very good and moral thing.

Our job is to not let it happen. And allowing them to have nuclear weapons is not the way to accomplish this. Do you agree?? If not why? Are you saying they have an inherent “right” to have nuclear weapons and that we have no interest or “right” to oppose this?

No comment on Brookings?

Just so I understand, you are calling yourself a moral relativist, correct? I need to understand your position here so I can properly tailor my arguments.


Iran, of course, is far more complex and diverse than the saber-rattles of Ahmadinejad. Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. If it hadn't signed the NPT, then it would have had the right to build nukes. If Iran did build nukes now, it would be in violation of the NPT. The world has an interest in Iran's nuclear ambitions. Short of an all out invasion of Iran by the world powers, Iran will eventually have nukes. This is the reality of the situation. But, I fear we are veering from the topic to debate by addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

We've known the day would come when North Korea would have nukes and the day will come for Iran. Other nations will join the club too. Nukes will likely make it into private hands and there will be a detonation of one or more nuke(s) in our lifetimes in a major population center in the west. We should intercept; we should engage; we should use the economic, diplomatic and military tools at our disposal. This is all we can do. But, let's face it. Invasion to enforce peace, increase stability and reduce terrorism has not worked.


I agree with what was in the Brookings quote. Didn't feel the need to comment on it.

That is not what I said. Moral Realist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism


And if you have to go to your philosophy text to deal with this issue then lets just drop it.



I agree. In fact the great hope is that the secular majority in Iran takes over from the fundamentalist nutcases. But in the short run we need to oppose Iran and frustrate their nuclear weapons plans. If this hastens the end of this regime all the better.

Iran has the second largest oil reserves in the world. A war with them is out of the question. If they attack Israel with a nuke then all hell will break lose right in the middle of ½ the world oil. The result is economic disaster for our 12 trillion $ economy.




The BIG difference is that NK is not a vital part of the world for OIL. If they attack we can nuke them into the stone-age and not destroy our economy (and that of the west). Not so with Iran. And invading would be a nightmare.

Okay, so, you believe that there are morally realistic situations where it is justified for a country to ship arms and training to another country to further that originator country's aims. And you believe that Iran is not morally permitted to do this in Iraq because...US soldiers are being killed. Furthermore, you seem to give the US a pass for what it did during the Cold War because...it was a long time ago (and perhaps was morally justified in doing this). Do I understand this correctly? Please correct me if I misunderstood. Then we can continue this part of the debate from there.


Yeah, it probably would be a disaster. I agree with what you have written here. Clearly, negotiating with terrorists (or exporters of terrorism) can be politically and economically justified.


Agreed. And yet while the economic repercussions of invading NK are less, we still haven't done so (nor do we plan to).

No one gets a pass. We did things that were against our highest moral ideals in the cold war and that is it. If you want to play word games with someone pick another person.

The REALITY is that the terrorists feel it is justified to kill each and every one of us – man, woman and child, by any means possible. This is their moral imperative. How do we deal with this? If you your idea is we come up with arguments to allow Iran to aquire the means to do this without our opposition I disagree. And if you think we are hypocrites for this – FINE. At least we will be breathing hypocrites.




“Negotiating” can take many forms and I like the more straightforward type – that is we tell Iran not to help are enemies or there will be “consequences” .





Right and I would not want to – but we look like paper tigers when we say “we will not allow” and then let it slide. I am sure Iran noticed – don’t you?

Ted, you can't say what the terrorists feel because based on your approach, you don't know what terrorists feel, you aren't negotiating with them. You are guessing about their intentions. You cannot pull from their bellicose statements what they are really thinking when you consider that Pres. Bush has said things like, "We'll smoke them out of their caves." and "Dead or alive." Those phrases do not accurately describe the President's position, and the same can be said for the terrorists when they say, "the streets will run red with American blood." Based on Pres. Bush's statements any Muslim would believe that the United States is coming to destroy them because the President has lumped al-Qaida in with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and North Korea. You did the same in your response to logophage. You said the "terrorists feel" and then went on to ask a rhetorical question about our dealing with Iran as if they were one in the same. The mental manipulation has worked on you, Ted. Pres. Bush's propaganda has made sure you no longer discern between country and terrorist organization. The reasoning for being over in the Middle East this time was to stop terrorism. Iran is not a terrorist country, they are a Muslim theocracy/democracy. Only someone as unenlightened as Glen Beck could come to the conclusion that all Muslims are terrorists. Hamas and Hezbollah are as much a threat to the United States as the ETA in Spain and the IRA in Ireland are, which is to say not a threat at all. Iran and North Korea are not a threat either. If you can explain when the last time either of those countries invaded another country or launched a pre-emptive attack on somebody outside their region then I might be inclined to believe you, but Iran has not warred with anybody but Iraq in the last thirty years and N. Korea has only had conflict with S. Korea. The United States on the other hand, since World War II, has killed people in Somalia, Iraq, Guatemala, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Bosnia. If you include those facts with the fact that we are the only nation in the world to detonate an atomic bomb and kill massive amounts of civilians then the evidence makes Iran and North Korea look like Ghandi.


I hope you are being facetious. That's not negotiating, that's dictating. Consider our response would be if Iran or N. Korea told us what we were going to do. Why should we expect them to capitulate when we wouldn't?

Again, you are not sure Iran noticed anything, you have no dialogue with them. The "Come on you know they did" approach might be a good argument in a college cafeteria or at a Starbucks, but in the world of global politics you need more than assumptions to formulate a policy.

So when they say we are SATAN and should all die they don’t mean it? How about when they give the triggers for IEDs insurgents in Iraq. We can tell by their Actions what they mean and what their intensions are. – We don’t need a sign. They want a theocratic Shiite dominated Iraq – they have said as much. They want Israel destroyed. Is that not correct? Where am I wrong sir?




If we were supporting their enemies I would expect them to say the same and of course they have. We are the SATAN partially because we support Israel who they want to wipe off the map. Where do YOU think there is common ground to “negotiate” with Iran? Our positions seem to be diametrically opposed and have been long before the liberal whipping boy BUSH came along.

Tell me what we could offer them that would persuade them to not develop nukes. You know of course we have offered just about everything already. How about an offer that they would accept to stop supplying the insurgents, or Hammas in Lebanon? And if you tell me they are nice guys who never deal in arms to Hammas in Lebanon – stop joking.

Can’t wait for you pithy answer.

Who is they?

Iran, is it Iran in total? Who is the enemy, is it Islam? It is Arabs, or Persians?

What is the enemies objectives, who are they, where do they live, what do they do, what countries are they in, where do they get funds or equipment? I mean can you answer all of those questions objectively, I mean I think you should be able to in order to support military actions is all. I mean if someone committed a crime in a some city should we invade the city? By what rights did we have to invade the ME and cause so much turmoil, I mean to me it has done more harm then good to the region in general in regards to peace and safety for the world, what standards do you suggest for how to start a conflict, faulty intelligence, leaking classified information on special agents perhaps? I mean to defeat terrorism in my eyes for what it is would to be getting on a better foot with the culture or cultures its manifesting in, not making them all rather sore of your presence.

For one question, what do you know of Islamic culture, do you know if the text is to be read left to right or right to left? Maybe this is to difficult and we should just invade on possibility not really substantiated by much anything factually relevant, such as Iraq, it could be just me but I would say such will only makes things worse, and then worse.

I know such questions are probably liberal and anti American and most likely spawned by the groups that made global warming but I think such is simply just lawful questions that should be asked is all.

To me the bottom line is open dialogue and diplomacy could probably make great strides where bombs simply cant really, but we don’t truly practice this. I mean I know the bush family has a lot vested with the bin ladens, but that aside what great progress has this admin made in regards to diplomatic relations with the mideast. From the looks of it most of all the talk from middle east leaders about Iraq destabilizing the middle east was simply ignored.

Ted, welcome to English 101, when you use pronouns like "they" you need to define who you are referring to, such as Iran, Hamas, al-Qaida, and so on. I won't respond until I know who "they" are.


Ted, you need to prove Iran is developing nuclear weapons before we start this line of questioning. From all indications, you seem to believe them when they say want to kill us, but when they say they aren't producing, and do not plan on producing nuclear weapons you don't believe them. If you have information to prove your point, please provide it. I don't expect you to provide it because I know it doesn't exist. Here is what does exist. UN Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Iran, December 23, 2006
Very nice statement from our ambassador. The Iranian response:

To be fair, Israel is not a declared nuclear state, because? Anyone? Bueller? ....... Israel wouldn't let inspectors into their country.

We invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let UN inspectors in his country. Actually, he let them in and they didn't find anything, but we invaded anyway because facts aren't all that important. Now, we sanction Iran because they won't stop enriching uranium for energy, not weapons. Same story, different country. Now, you might be thinking, "what does Iran need nuclear energy for when they have all that oil?" That's probably a question that would be better asked to our U.S. President since we have nuclear energy and vast oil reserves as well. Even if you could prove Iran is planning on producing nuclear weapons you still need to show why a country that has never invaded anyone or launched a pre-preemptive attack is likely to do so now.

Now explain how Hamas threatens the United States? Hamas is a Palestinian organization that attacks Israel. Israel is an ally, but that does not mean we need to step into that regional conflict. We did not step in to help England against IRA bombings or Spain against attacks by the ETA, I don't see why Hamas is any different. Simply put, Hamas is not our problem.

I have no desire "to play word games" with you. I am simply trying to understand your position. I am not against you. I'm not trying to catch you in some "moral fallacy". You have a moral position and I'm trying to understand it. So please correct any misstatements I have made above.


We should oppose Iran's acquisition of nukes. Yet, they will acquire nukes. What's the game plan afterwards? We need to start now.

I'm not sure where the hypocrite idea comes from. I don't believe that we (the US) are hypocrites in this regard. We clearly don't want Iran to have nukes, and yet they will eventually have nukes. Let's move on...


Consequences like invasion? No one believes the US will do this, particularly Iran. Consequences like an air campaign? All their militarizable nuke plants are deep, deep underground under major population centers. Consequences like broad economic sanctions? Neither the EU nor Russia are interested in this. What are the consequences you're referring to?


Agreed. We do look like paper tigers. And Iran did indeed notice. Iran has effectively check-mated us. Had we not committed all our mobilizable military assets to Iraq and had North Korea not been so effective in getting its nukes, then we might have had a chance with whole "consequences" thing. Well... it's too late.

Ok sorry if I was paranoid. My position is that we have the right to protect soldiers in military operations in Iraq. When we have clear evidence the government of Iran is behind aiding the enemy we should do anything we can, short of invasion to stop it. We should also expect the EU to work with us as well as the UN. Sanctions need to be universally enforced to be effective.





No invasion but we could take out the plants that make the triggers for the IEDs. This might save a few dozen or more soldiers lives. We have and should continue to put high pressure on European allies to agree to sanctions. Countries that refuse should see cuts in US aid etc.

I have no problem with negotiating with Iran and as C Rice has pointed out we have been doing it for years. I am pessimistic that it will provide favorable results. They want nukes and will do what it takes to get them unless sanctions are effective and bring down the nutty government.

And yes it is clear the nucular facilities are buried just as in NK and certainly Iraq did the same thing with WMD until just before we came in. This is the reason the Pentagon was looking at the nuclear “bunker busters”.




I don’t agree that Iraq had anything to do with this. It is much more complex. Being “next door” would have made it easy to bomb an area and have a Delta team take out the nuke facilities. The issue is IMO we don’t have the political will to attack a country knowing that a very large segment of it does not like the current regime. And they are not there yet. When it is clear they have the material and are assembling weapons the situation could be different. – say 3-5 years (or more) out. If we fail to act at that point Israel surely will. The danger then would be that stopping a nuclear attack on Israel, even with spy satellites’, could be impossible. Do you remember the movie Crimson Tide? Where a Russian faction had control of nukes and were “fueling” ICBMs. Well with short range missiles (as tested last week by Iran) the warning IMO would be too short. Nuclear war could start before we could do a thing about it.




Barnaby welcome to reading 101. Since I have been referring to and posing about Iran above I though you might have picked it up. So let me be clear – IRAN – ok?



That’s right they are not producing nuclear weapons because they need the material to do that and that is why they have the 3,000 centrifuges and will no longer allow the UN to inspect in that area. Do you have any doubt they are producing fissionable material? If so why? The UN sanctions say a lot of folks think that is exactly what they are doing.



Iran claims to be making fuel for a nuclear reactor. One itntellectual from Iran on NPR the other day laughed and said they have no reactor and won’t for some time and with huge oil and gas reserves they need one like a hole in the head. Hey if Iran is making fuel for a nuclear plant – fine let the inspectors watch. We offered to GIVE them the fuel and so did the EU sir – did you miss that. And inspection would easily pick up on the type of “fuel” (U235) that Iran will make (for bombs not plants) and that is why they are out and why the EU said this.

TEHRAN/BRUSSELS - The European Union on Friday insisted Iran give up nuclear fuel work and called an urgent meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog that could refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions.
But a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator said the Islamic Republic would resume work at a nuclear fuel plant regardless of EU proposals for political and economic incentives that offered support for the building of nuclear power stations.


To be “fair” Israel never attacked a neighbor and I recall no authorized UN resolution to inspect for nukes that Israel refused – do you? Post it please.



You mean the Hamas that is trying to topple the elected government in Lebanon . Hamas that - Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[7] Canada,[8][9] the European Union,[10] Israel,[11] Japan,[12] the United Kingdom,[13] and the United States,[14] and is banned in Jordan.[15

This is not northern Ireland and we have vital interests in the region.

if we don't negotiate with our enemies, with whom will we negotiate -- just our friends?

but, if we negotiate only from a position of weakness, we will only succeed in negotiating our defeat.

Enemies and terrorists are not the same thing.

We have a legitimate enemy in North Korea, or Iran etc..

Terrorist are enemies but not in a traditional or organized way making diplomacy with them very difficult:

USA: We'd like you to stop attacking our troops.
Terrorist: Death to the infidel! Will will not stop until you are all dead!
USA: If you're not with us, you're against us. Sanctions will fall harder than bombs.
Terrorist: Allah Akbar! I want a pony!
USA: Well if you don't we're looking into banning iPods from you.
Terrorist: You are the great Satan! Look a seagull...

I agree that we have a right to protect our soldiers. We can interdict hardware being shipped into Iraq from Iran; we can give Iran incentives to not ship such hardware into Iraq; we can impose sanctions; we can get Iran's friends to ask Iran to stop. What we can't do is attack Iran, that is, violate its sovereignty, just because we know that this stuff is coming across the border. At least, we can't do that overtly. I suppose if there were plausible deniability in play we might be able to interdict on Iran's side of the border. It's a dangerous game.


Bombing these plants might save a few soldiers lives at the cost of killing Iranian civilians not to mention that such bombing is an act of war.


If favorable results means Iran stops trying to produce nukes, then I agree. But, Iran is not completely irrational. It does want to be a via partner in the world economy. It just doesn't like the US. It thinks the US is out to get it; it sees an escalation of anti-Iranian rhetoric within the US leadership much like the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Iran has not falsely ascertained this.


Umm... If a nuke plant is under Tehran (populated by millions), the US will certainly not drop a nuclear bunker buster. Such military tactics are worse than useless.


Having a base on Quwait would be sufficient for your proposal (which wouldn't work, BTW -- maybe we could send Chuck Norris ). The Iraq factor adds an entirely different level of complexity to the whole issue. The threat of invasion is so much more diminished when those troops are tied down in Iraq. Moreover, it is clear that the US has had a lot of trouble dealing with an insurgency. This has only served to embolden Iran as the US is no longer granted as much "might" it used to have in the eyes of the world.


If Israel preemptively attacks Iran, they will reap what they sow. Iran will defend itself. I fear that we're getting off-topic to debate this though.

You can not negotiate with an enemy. No negotiation in the history of the world between enemies has ever succeeded.

You can only negotiate with friends and former enemies. We defeated Germany and Japan, then we talked to them. Not the other way around.

As for Israel and nuclear inspections. It just so happens that Israel did not sign the NPT nor did India or Pakistan, whereas both Iraq and Iran did. India, Pakistan and Israel did not gain any of the benefits that the nuclear powers gave under the NPT. They all do allow the IAEA to inspect their nuclear power plants for safety, which is required under UN. Both Iraq and now Iran violated the provisions of the NPT which they were members of. That is why both were sanctioned by the UNSC and India, Pakistan and Israel have not been.

It's not a double standard, it is the application of signed treaties.

As for what we can do about Iran, well since nearly 60% of their gasoline is imported from their neighbors, turning off the tap would be fairly simple. A couple of submarines could manage it in a matter of minutes. Just an idea.

I'll try and clear up this gross misreading of history. When Arafat, as the head of the PLO, renounced terrorism in 1988, the US ended their policy of non-negotiation with them. The president at the time, in case you don't remember, was a doddering old dude named Reagan. Subsequently, President Bush "negotiated" with Arafat over the failed Madrid talks.

It's true that Arafat visited Washington 24 times during Clinton's reign. However, the prime minister of Israel visited Washington 27 times during Clinton's presidency. The only difference was that the leadership in Israel changed hands, while Arafat remained the leader of the Palestinians - so we don't see Rabin, for example, having as many visits.

Building on the policy change that came about under President Reagan, Clinton spent much of his entire term trying to negotiate a peace plan for Israel and Palestine. Thus, the leaders of Israel and Palestine were the two most frequent visitors to the White House.

And when it comes to negotiating with terrorists, I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you! - that you don't pile Reagan onto your 'dung heap of history.' After all, in response to several US citizens being kidnapped and tortured in Lebanon, he sent people to negotiate with Iran (considered a terrorist state), who was thought to have influence with the kidnappers. This team, which included Ollie North, sold arms to Iran in an effort to have Iran influence the kidnappers. To top it off, they over-charged Iran and used the extra proceeds to send money to another terrorist group, the Contras in Nicaragua.

So perhaps you would like to amend your statement - after you say "That's why we should keep the Clintons, and their minions from the predatory legal world and the far left, out of the White House by any and all means," you ought to add, "that's why we should keep the Reagans and Bushes, and their minions from the predatory corporate war-profiteering industry and the far right, out of the White House by any and all means."

Oh, and I'm still chuckling at your insistence that President Clinton was "far left."

I think we should do whatever we can inside Iran to hurt the current regime including covert operations. If we could secretly drop I and blow the factory that produced the triggers I would be in favor – you?

You say bombing is an act of war but what do you consider sending vital electronics to the enemy across the border? Are they free to come across and help kill Americans while we cannot follow them back? A complicated question.




Actually I think the more important point is out support for Israel. That IMO alone is the major cause of hatred of the US in the ME. And there is little or nothing we can do about it.





Unlikely – see below. In any case we are looking for a non nuclear bunker buster that could do the job.
Commercial satellite photographs taken in September show a nuclear facility near the town of Natanz and another one near Arak, the officials said. (View map)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.nuclear/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm



To get back to the topic lets agree that we have “negotiated” with Iran for many years to no end. They want and will have nuclear weapons unless the EU, US and UN enforce severe sanctions. And if this fails the consequences for the region are dire.




I think we should do whatever we can inside Iran to hurt the current regime including covert operations. If we could secretly drop I and blow the factory that produced the triggers I would be in favor – you?

You say bombing is an act of war but what do you consider sending vital electronics to the enemy across the border? Are they free to come across and help kill Americans while we cannot follow them back? A complicated question.




Actually I think the more important point is our support for Israel. That IMO alone is the major cause of hatred of the US in the ME. And there is little or nothing we can do about it.





Unlikely – see below. In any case we are looking for a non nuclear bunker buster that could do the job.
Commercial satellite photographs taken in September show a nuclear facility near the town of Natanz and another one near Arak, the officials said. (View map)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.nuclear/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm



To get back to the topic lets agree that we have “negotiated” with Iran for many years to no end. They want and will have nuclear weapons unless the EU, US and UN enforce severe sanctions. And if this fails the consequences for the region are dire.

I would not be in favor as I think the risk of being caught is too great.


Bombing inside Iran's borders is an act of war. Selling weapons/training to those who would use the same against us is not an act of war. Crossing the border into Iran to blow stuff up or assassinate may or may not be considered an act of war; it could certainly warrant it.


It is true that US support of Israel plays a role here. However, it is also the case that Iran feels very threatened by the US independent of Israel.


Interesting links. Yeah, I'm not surprised that there are nuclear plants in plain site. I suppose these could be bombed but I doubt they are the major production facilities of weapons-grade uranium.


No, I don't agree that we've "negotiated" with Iran to no end. But, the US would have to dramatically change its rhetoric. It needs to accept that Iran with nukes will happen and build from there.

Also, the only "consequences" I can think of that would have real teeth would be broad sanctions: neither the EU nor Russia will comply. So, in effect, there are no consequences for Iran developing nukes. Iran will have nukes. The US has spent its capital elsewhere in the region. Too bad for the US and Israel... It could have turned out much differently had the US not invaded Iraq.

But you seem to be ok with Iranians coming into Iraq to help kill Americans and subvert out cause there and the democratically elected government? Or am I wrong. I would give the sanctions a chance to work and then if the EU bails (as I suspect they will) and Iran continue s they have been I would be more aggressive. And if they consider that an act of war – so what!





And why is that? Because of something we said?? They have been calling us names since the 70s. All terrorist nations fear us and should IMO. If not then there would be no downside to providing WMD to those who would love to use them right here - would there?




Correct – they will be buried as much to conceal what they are really doing as anything else. As you might (or not) suspect we have the capability to detect U235 from the air and Iran has been working to refine it for some time.


The New York Times quotes European and American officials in reporting that inspectors detected traces of uranium in Iran that had been processed to a purity reserved for nuclear weapons: 90 percent of the rare 235 isotope.

It has not been reported before that uranium enriched to that degree was in Iran.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/...ain580756.shtml




.
The implication here is that if we had not gone into Iraq things would be different?? Why. If sanctions were dropped Iraq and Iran would have resumed their nuclear arms race in any case. Nothing we could have done would have made a difference except perhaps stop supporting Israel. Iran (as Iraq) was set on having nukes for at least a decade.

I'm not okay with it, however Iraq is not the US. Nor are those crossing into Iraq from Iran proven to be Iranian sanctioned military actions -- as far as I know they are private citizens. Iraq could consider Iran's intervention an act of war but so far...nada.

As far as upping the ante is concerned, this just sounds like reactionary rhetoric to me. Iran may be involved in Iraq indirectly, but it has not taken any direct, overt, hostile actions against US forces.

Since this is a negotiate with terrorists thread, I'm not going to answer the remainder of your points (which are good ones and deserve responses). I fear we are straying far from topic at this point.

You mean none we know of. I agree Iraq must deal with them and you can be sure the Shiites in Iran are hoping they can influence the government to give them more power in Iraq.

Iran will be an enemy of this country while the current government is in power. We can negotiate with them but at some point (before they become a nuclear threat) we need to consider all our options. The good news is, if there is any, it will be the next administration that gets to do that. Perhaps there is a way we could strike them before they launched a nuke at Israel (that would be there in about 3 min. I don’t know what that is – do you.

A centrifuge is used to enrich uranium. They can be used for nuclear technology and/or nuclear weapons. Iran publicly announced that they were installing 3,000 centrifuges.
Iran is currently installing 3,000 centrifuges.
Public declaration of plans to install the centrifuges is part of the protocol under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Which means Iran is in compliance of the NPT and IAEA. We know that centrifuges are used to produce uranium, what we don't know is if Iran is going to use that uranium for energy or weaponry. I believe you are claiming, based on their expulsion of IAEA inspectors, that Iran's plan is to use the uranium for weapons. If I am stating your belief correctly, then your opinion is based on information you don't have. You will never get this information because you don't believe in negotiating with Iran. Excellent idea! Have you learned nothing from the catastrophe in Iraq? You are willing to accept no information as proof that Iran is in violation of the NPT and thus, justifies an invasion. Faulty thinking across the board.

Here is why the inspectors were expelled from Iran and it has nothing to do with weapons.
Iran bars IAEA inspectors
Why was Iran sanctioned in the first place? Because they rejected a Security Council Resolution to halt uranium enrichment. There is no need to halt enrichment since Iran is not planning to create nuclear weapons. This is a delay tactic that worked the first time, but not the second.
The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution Monday giving Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Iran has said all along that their uranium enrichment process is peaceful. You may reject Iran's need for nuclear energy, but the Bush Administration does not agree with that. The Administration knows they cannot tell Iran they can't have nuclear energy, because we have nuclear energy in our country.
Sec. Condoleeza Rice: Iran can have nuclear energy, not arms
One intellectual from Iran? What intellectual? Does this person have a name?

I realize that we have offered Iran many options, but we also offered N. Korea the same options and did not follow through on the deal, so I do not see how Iran can trust the United States. Furthermore, Iran has every reason to be self-sufficient regarding nuclear energy. If Iran can provide nuclear energy to their citizens they can make more profit selling oil.

Onto Israel, they never attacked anybody huh? OK.
Six Day War
Wait, I have more.
Israel Bombs Iraq's Osirak Nuclear Research FacilityHow long are these lies good for?
The UN response:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 487
TED, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Educate yourself.

I asked you to explain why Hamas is a threat to the United States and you respond with this? Lebanon? Is Lebanon the United States? Get it together Ted.

First I never said I was against negotiating with Iran – quite the opposite and you must know we have been negotiating with Iran for many years (with little success) .

Second you need to understand that nuclear power plants do not need highly enriched U235 to run. This grade of uranium, already detected in Iran in 2004 – see story above- is used to make BOMBS. This is what Iran will not allow the inspectors to witness the output of the centrifuges and why they are in violation.

THIS is why they were sanctioned.

The IAEA's Report on Iran: An Analysis
Paul Kerr
On Nov. 10, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report charging Iran with violating its obligations under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In particular, the IAEA said that Tehran had been conducting experiments with imported nuclear material without informing the agency. The report also revealed that Iran had carried out a variety of clandestine nuclear activities for more than two decades. In doing so, it had deceived the agency on numerous occasions by concealing facilities and providing the IAEA with incomplete and false information. A discussion of the IAEA’s revelations follows.
Uranium Enrichment

Gas-Centrifuge Enrichment

Iran’s gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment program dates back to 1985 and currently consists of a small pilot facility at Natanz and a larger commercial facility u