HUH? You have no clue sir. Want to post some proof of this ludicrous statewment?


Yea and powers that unlike them have never attacked another country or said that they (IRAN) had no right to exist. I have no problem with Iran having nuclear power. When they start building weapons it will be a different story.

Bush won in Afghanistan with Clinton's military. Now, after 6 years of conservative misrule, it's acknowledged by all military experts that the US couldn't successfully invade Iran. Thanks Bush for destroying our military readiness on a wild goose chase in Iraq.



I don't believe Iran has invaded anybody in the last millennia, but of course conservatives presidents have made it a habit. As to the crazy rantings of Iran's crazy president against Israel, yeah, I agree, they're crazy. Fortunately, the president of Iran has no power.

Acknowledged by who? Want to back up the statement? And as an FYI Bill cut military spending and Bush did the oposit – over and above the war.



Well they did have this little war with Iraq – and if he had no power he would not be dragging his country through sanctions so that Iran can have nukes.

Everyone keeps refferring to the president of Iran as a madman...................

As opposed to the complete and utter lunitic America has in control.

Bush is either as dumb as dumb can get or a genius disguised as a moron.

Either way he has slipped a big fat one in the rear of America and you all seem to be enjoying it.

Milennia? Well, actually there was Greece, macedonia, India, Egypt, Rome... if you are willig to go back a bit, there werequite a lot of invasions. In fact there is an excellent movie about to be released called '300' about one of them.



Nuclear power you mean, that is all we can confirm. Sanctions mean little to Iran, they were under danctions for ages after the Hostage crisis, which is why they developped their domestic indutries way past any other nation in the Middle east except for Egypt. The only think the US could sanction which would have any real impact is oil, andfirstly good luck sanctioning a member of OPEC, and secondly even if you could, china would be in there so fast it would leave an airwash.

According to this, it looks like Bush is building another bogus case to pick another fight.

It's unbelievable people are not scrutinizing the Bush administrators claims after being 100% wrong about every aspect of the Iraq invasion.

Some people are willing to believe anything because they need something to believe in.

No I meant Nuclear weapons – as in BOMBS. And we have picked up traces of highly enriched U235 in Iran – NOT used for power plants – which by the way Iran has none of to date.

To say that the country with the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world as well as Hugh gas reserves nuclear power is so ludicrous it is laughable.

And by the way the sanctions ARE hurting Iran – they are having trouble refining their own oil.

http://www.phptr.com/articles/article.asp?p=420089&rl=1

I guess you didn't bother to read the history books where it points out the Iraq invaded Iran, with the help of Reagan and Bush 1

I'm not sure what you are saying...you don't believe these parts are from Iran? Or the fact that they are from Iran is irrelevant? These explosives are obviously from Iran, and the Iranians are crossing the border to fight, just as thousands crossed the border to vote years back. There is ample evidence of this, or do you just believe this evidence is "planted"? It's pretty important to the people on the ground, and especially the Iraqi sunnis. I don't see any case being made for an Iranian invasion (or whatever) over this. I predict Seymour Hersh will write yet his third piece in three years this spring on the "imminent" invasion of Iran.

On the other hand, the Iranian government is claiming that the US is arming its opposition groups, too. They showed some bullet casings made in the USA. Somehow I think if we were placing IEDs in cities in Iran, as they are doing to Iraq, they'd be rather upset.

Landru Guide Us:

Actually, you are wrong. We did not help Saddam invade Iran. He did that on his own. But after he did, the Iranians eventually counterattacked and were on the cusp of victory when we intervened, as we perceived an Iranian victory as an unacceptable outcome. And so we see Rummy with Saddam. But, again, at the start of that war, we had relations with neither country and declared ourselves "neutral". As the one soul at the State Department put the matter: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power." And have you ever of Khuzestan? If not, it is a disputed area that contains much resources. That area, another area [to be given to the UAE], and some access to the Persian Gulf were Iraq's objectives. But again, only when Saddam seemed near defeat did we intervene on the Iraqi side. Actually, you do recall Iran-Contra, yes? And so we actually helped Iran first, secretly of course, so Iran might use its influence for purposes of obtaining the release of some US citizens being held hostage in Lebanon. So I'd buy and/or read some new history book[s] if I were you.

For an interesting sidenote, since some here still despise Israel for a certain attack against our forces, well, what about, for some:

"An Iraqi plane attacked the USS Stark, a Perry class frigate on May 17 [1987], killing 37 and injuring 21."

Of course, since Saddam and Iraq aren't Jewish there isn't that same hateful animus and so we hear nothing about this from some. As for who such some might be, simply Google, "USS Liberty" and then "USS Stark". Seems that rense, counterpunch, commondreams, etc., only have a complaint when its Jews who kill our people. And related to this is that claim of apartheid state, though we can leave it to some to explain why, for one week at least, the one Druze Arab by the name of Majalli Wahaba will be the acting President of Israel.

And so you know, the concern here isn't simply that Iran wants a nuc or two, but that they haven't had good things to say about Israel and, well, their public spokespersons don't seem to care that they come off as "wingnuts" [so maybe they are wingnuts]. And while they can't hit us with that nuc or two quite yet, they already have missiles capable of reaching Israel. And since we'd all like to avoid WWIII, we want them to stop, so Israel won't have to strike first, and so we won't have to have WWIII following [the fear is that Iran will strike back with bio and/or chem weapons and so Israel will launch its own nuc attack and then where will we be?]. And that's the difference between now and then. We helped the Shah with nuclear power since he wasn't a wingnut, and that's not to say he was all sweetness and light, but there's a difference between the Shah and Saddam on the one hand, and the wingnuts ruling Iran on the other hand, since the wingnuts might just be wingnut enough to use the weapon and we think that Israel knows that too and so here we are...

The idea Iran is above sanctions and somehow untouchable economically is as much believable as Iran's claims it cured AIDS or that little girls in Iranian living rooms have discovered Nuclear power. All things the current IRI government has actually said.

I am sorry Ted but your single sentence did not properly address the total inaccuracy of this argument.

It is not just the idea that Iran has to import it's oil that makes their predicament so vulnerable to sanctions, they also have to then sell that imported oil that they purchased at market value back at a subsidized price domestically. Iran's oil nationally is heavily subsidized and is said to be a very, very touchy issue politically.
As Iran's appetite for this fuel ever increases how is this ridiculous pay scheme paid for? Iran has what it calls an Oil Stabilization Fund, which based on Iranian news reports has already been exhausted. Iran is using it's foreign-currency reserves to domestically subsidize it's oil prices and again according to Iran's own news reports the foreign-currency reserves are also being used to pay government salaries and meet other gov. budget needs. So this leaves one (legitimate) avenue left to the govt or Iran to quench it's fiscal needs...foreign credit.

And this is where the US and their newly designed sanctions comes in..in fact they don't like to even call them sanctions. No longer do we wish to target basic imports or tangible goods most often destined for the average Iranian on the street. Instead we now opt to ask banks nicely, look to North Korea and the method I discussed in this debate if you do not understand how it works in action, to stop enabling. There is no need for a UN vote, or for other government's cooperation. It is a private sector tool and it is based on our global dependence on one another, it is a bi-product of globalization. Once a bank has been deemed uncooperative and a "money laundering concern" of the US govt they can no longer have access to the US financial institutions. It is very bad for business as such an action essentially cuts a bank off from the world.

Personally I think this method is very useful but I appreciate it the most for the simple fact that it now turns the table on the enablers or world governments who choose to not stand up against regimes like Iran's or North Korea's and asks them to now pay for their inactivity, to now make the cost of their support more personal, and as we saw with China regarding North Korea it is often a cost too high.

Perhaps now Vermillion that you understand the nature of the sanctions the US is pursuing with Iran you could better explain how Iran's " domestic industries" will manufacture more financial markets?

The issue isn't whether EFPs were made in Iran or whether Iranians are crossing the border to fight. The issue is whether the al-Quds brigade is acting on IRI orders. Bush said as much.


Has our military questioned Shiite PM Maliki, who complained when our military arrrested "Iranian security agents" in December, in al-Hakim's Baghdad compound? I thought so.

Al-Hakim is the leader of SCIRI, the largest Shiite political faction in the Iraqi parliament, and happens to consider Sadr's Mehdi Army a rival. If Iran is supplying weapons from somewhere within its territory Bush spoke too soon when he praised "His Eminenc[e] [al-Hakim's] strong position against the murder of innocent life" because SCIRI is getting a piece of the action.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported:


Foreign weapons have come from as far as Vienna if one believes military reports are accurate. Is the IRI ordering al-Quds to infiltrate and, perhaps with the assistance of Iraqi politicians, kill Americans and Sunnis? Possibly. After six years of foibles, is our intelligence right this time? It looks like it's still puttering. Are military reports on the situtation trustworthy? Not always.


This is the first time I hear this. If they did the Iraqi Shiite majority is probably complicit in the act. Thousands of Iranians don't walk into your country without your notice. If you're an Iraqi Shiite, though, you may not want to do without the extra votes. But just in case we're wrong we'll keep dying for them anyways.

I never said Iran was above sanctions, nor that it was untouchable economically. What I did say is that Iran has suffered sanctions before, and has survived, and that as a result Iran has for years been on a campaign to make itself more self0sufficient, something it has made huge strides at doing. Yes obviously further sanctions will hurt, but sanction hard enough and Iran will turn and sell its oil to somebody other than the United states and the west, and in that situation, the west suffers more than Iran would.

Besides, the US is outpacing its own refining capacity due to the refusal of the big US oil companies to allow any refineries to be built in the last 30 years, so who is doing Iran's refining?

However you do make a good point about refining capacity in Iran, and its need to import finished product fuel:



Gee, lets all put on our thinking caps and try and figure out what kind of domestic Industry Iran my be trying to work towards to solve this very sticky problem?

Hey! Nuclear power! Suddenly, Iran no longer needs to import anywhere near as much fuel to run its economy, suddenly it can power itself. 9Which is Odd since Ted has been insisting there is no imaginable reason why Iran would want a domestic power industry) Or how about new Iranian oil refineries? Like the one being built at Qeshm island? Look at those up and coming domestic industries!

Of course failing the domestic industry I mentioned in my first post, there is always the other option i mentioned in my first post, going outside the West, as they are already doing.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStor...000260.htm&

Point to Landru Guide Us. Ted falsely claimed Iran invaded Iraq. Iran did not. I don't beleive Iran has invaded a neighbor in about 2500 years. Not a bad track record.

You are not addressing the question I asked of you.
I took the time to explain that the US is not pursuing the type of sanctions you have claimed, I have shown past debates where I have also argued in favor for this new approach and what I claim to be a past success.
In regards to the argument I have put forth on US sanctions on Iran could you explain how Iran's "self sufficiency" will not allow these sanctions to be as effective? Iran has not faced this type of sanctioning from the US before so laying claim to historical precedence is inaccurate. I fail to see how your argument even relates to or considers the actual US policy of sanctions on Iran.



Again completely off topic, that has nothing to do with anything being argued or discussed by me. Just a random swipe at the US I suspect.



Well you must be commended on your insistence to fully represent the other side of the argument. That is a IRI talking point if I ever heard one. No government claims the IRI is not allowed to pursue nuclear power, the argument is that they agreed to do so with IAEA supervision and full disclosure. The idea they are just trying to provide for themselves is just a piece of the propaganda war. The Western nations have been more than generous to Iran when it comes to providing "domestic industry solutions"

Iran does not sell oil to the US but to the world oil market and Iran may be able to survive sanctions but that does not mean they will allow this issue to force them to suffer sanctions – Ahmadinejad does not have full favor anymore.

“U.S. and European officials think Iran's new interest in negotiations is a sign that their pressure on Tehran is working. The campaign includes the initial U.N. sanctions resolution, which shook the Iranians because it was backed by Russia and China; tough U.S. banking sanctions, accompanied by a successful Treasury Department push to dissuade European and Japanese banks from lending to Iran; and calculated muscle-flexing by the Bush administration, which has sent an additional aircraft carrier task force into the Persian Gulf and seized Iranian operatives inside Iraq.

The multipronged squeeze on Tehran surprised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials.

Western officials see various signs of an altered political balance in Tehran: public criticism of Ahmadinejad's management of the economy by former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; a letter challenging the president's economic policy signed by 150 members of the Iranian parliament”

U.S. and European officials think Iran's new interest in negotiations is a sign that their pressure on Tehran is working. The campaign includes the initial U.N. sanctions resolution, which shook the Iranians because it was backed by Russia and China;

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/...-headlines-oped




Of course you are right on. As we know Iran rushes to refine uranium for a plant it does not have and won’t for years and, by the way, could be fueled by uranium purchased (or given) at a fraction of the cost of the centrifuges. And of course the key is even if they want to “do it themselves” if they allow for monitoring of the complete process it is just fine per the NPT.

Mrs. PigPen, your argument is hypocritical because it ignores the numerous other countries that are in Iraq on our behalf. While the "Coalition of the Willing" is not as robust as Boy George would have us believe, it is still a significant force in the region. We have no right to lambast the Iranians for supplying munitions or troops to oppose us in this conflict, unless we are willing to send every nation assisting us back to their home country. The Bush Administration is not willing to do that since it will increase the withdrawal debate about our soldiers and further diminish the already flailing support there is left for this war. Messing with Iran is a bad idea. China and Russia will not sit by idly and watch the United States take over their energy resource.

Really? I wasn't aware that Iranian forces are planting IEDs and attacking Iraqi security forces at the beheast of the elected Iraqi government.

Your point is moot on several levels. First, the above. Our forces (all coalition forces) are there at the beheast of the Iraqi government, actively working with Iraqi police forces. Next, by about the middle of this year most of the other countries will withdraw. Britain, our largest contributor, is removing many of their forces, and the South Korean forces are all moving to Lebanon. We'll have very little help left. Third, I'm not sure what gave you the impression I advocate "messing around with Iran". It is what it is, I'm merely stating the obvious.

Did the Iraqi government ask us to invade as well? I don't remember Saddam Hussein requesting our services. The current Iraqi government is only two years old and we have been in Iraq for over four years. You seem to have a limited view on the history of that country. To suggest we are there at the behest of a government that we created is ... well... humorous.

Then you allude to the fact that we do have assistance from other nations and suggest they are leaving. Well, they haven't left yet, so until then, Iran has every right to intervene.

Please state your position clearly, do you believe Iran should not assist in the resistance of our occupation, or do you believe they have that right? I say they have every right to assist, what say you?

Ummm...no, I don't believe so. And if so, I doubt it has anything to do with Iran - as a government - wanting to pick a fight with us.

This article spells out more reasons why Bush's claims are dubious. Just like the mobile weapons labs, et al, we're hearing the same crap. Do these articles make a case Bush is lying? Of course not. But the Bush administration and truth are not on speaking terms. I'm going with the ones not proven to be liars (yet).

Landru Guide Us:

Re the record, that depends. Did Iran have the capability to do any invading? If not, then maybe the Persians don't get credit for being peaceful people. I mean, I can want to invade, but maybe I am smart enough to realize that while I might want to do some invading, that I don't have the capability to do so, and so I don't. In that scenario I don't get credit for being peaceful, but I do get credit for having the good sense to know that intent is one thing and capability another.

Now re the record, not as peaceful as you might think, and here's what I mean. The Persians of Iran spent much time trying to deal with the Arabs involved in the era of Islamic [really Arab] conquest. Once initially conquered and with it "conversion", then we have a struggle within the Islamic world for domination between Arabs and Persians, and at one time, Persians did rule from Afghanistan to Syria. Then there was that Mongol horde that came a calling and that wasn't good for Iran. And then there was Timur. So we have for nine centuries, most of their history being foreign or fragmented rule, and hard to invade others when you're ruled over by some others yourself and, well, fragmentation speaks for itself.

But that was then and this is now, and so we'll have to see now that they can afford themselves the luxury of having an invading intent, or in Israel's case, maybe simply a wholly destructive intent [i.e., maybe they want to skip the invasion and just simply nuc Israel into nothingness, and so you appreciate that concern, take out your map of the world and look at just how small Israel is, and then ask, unlike the large US with many large cities with much people, how many nucs would it take to eliminate Israel, or at least cause enough destruction to people and facilities that all those immediately surrounding her would have little trouble overruning the place, and so that's the Israeli fear, I mean, Iran probably won't nuc Jerusalem, so what's left, Tel Aviv and Haifa?].

Oh, and by the way, should it come to a strike on their nuclear facilities, we'll need to know who strikes, I mean, our approach will certainly be different than Israel's. Let me put it this way, for cruel irony, those advocating we bag out of Iraq make it more likely that we have an Israeli attack. First, with us there, Israel will need our permission to fly over Iraq to get to Iran, and the Iranians know that. So if the Israelis want to strike and we say, yea, then we risk counterstrike on our troops in Iraq, and we know that. And since we don't want our troops to be hit, maybe we're telling Israel to put the hold on any plan it might have to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. But if we're gone, well, if we attacked, we'd likely only hit their nuclear facilities, though the Saudis must be wondering whether Iran would dare counterstrike and hit our troops in Saudi, but assuming that such doesn't happen, we're fairly immune from counterstrike, at least your more conventional military counterstrike [which is why the Iranians remark on hitting US citizens around the world and not our armed forces]. Israel, however, well, they aren't immune and so they would likely hit not only the suspected nuclear facilities but also missile sites and then to give the Iranians something more important to worry about than counterstrike, they might even hit Iran's water supply as well. Iran is very vulnerable with respect to its water supply, and going back to intent and capability, one of the reasons why Iran did not have the capability to do any invading for a while there is that the invading Mongol horde largely destroyed the qanat water supply system in Iran and so Iran became a collection of oasis cities, and then when the Mongol rule waned, Iran was ruled by petty dynasties [hard to have an empire without water].

And what happens if Israel does get nuked by Iran? Do they just hit Iran, or do they forestall a Hizb Allah attack by taking out southern Lebanon and maybe even Beirut, and what about Damascus, to forestall the Syrians? I would hope that Damascus understands this point, I mean, it's not like they have a peace with Israel, only cease-fire, so I would hope that Damascus would be doing everything in its power to forestall an Iranian nuc that might be used against Israel and so Israel might then feel compelled to turn Damascus into a mushroom cloud. If your thought is, they could wait to judge Syrian intentions and then nuc Damascus if need be, well, how rational are people after they've been nuked? So I wouldn't count on any rationality playing a role at that point. I mean, we took 3,000 or so KIA on 9/11, and some here say that we "overreacted". Fine, so what does a nuclear strike do in terms of overreaction? And if the whole place goes up in a welter of intense heat and radiation, who fills the vacuum?

Now, re intent, well, how much aid and comfort does Iran provide to Hizb Allah and some others? What does that say about them being all sweetness and light, and otherwise non-aggressive?

And what does this do to the good record that you claim:

"(The) Quran says: Kill! Imprison! Why are you only clinging to the parts that talk about mercy? Mercy is against God. Mehrab means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, just as all the wars of Islam used to proceed out of the mehrabs."

"We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throats, stone people in the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people."

"'War is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is Allah who incites men to fight and to kill.The Koran says, 'Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased.' The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, 'War, war until victory!...' The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to Allah, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting Allah's commandments into action. They know that to kill the unbelievers is one of man's greatest missions."

Those public service announcements were brought to you by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The current buffoon is his spiritual child. Need I say that I would be a fool, well, worse than a fool, to pretend that it is somehow acceptable to risk nuc bomb development when the buffoon thinks that it's his greatest mission to kill kufr me? And don't say that he hasn't tried it yet, 'cause, remember, that may only be because he's at least smart enough to understand that intent is not capability and so while he has the intent, he understands that he doesn't yet have the capability. And so I'm worried about him getting the capability, since he has not shown yet that he has repudiated the above, as his actions towards his own people shows that he hasn't eliminated the chop, the cut, and the stone, and, well, what does the wingnut otherwise say to the world?

Lastly, that aid to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War that I mentioned in my last was largely anti-tank missiles and spare parts [they were still using US equipment left over from the days of the Shah].

The UN, under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, recognizes Iraq as a sovereign government capable of asserting its full authority. So, the Iraqi government can request that our troops stay and that makes their presence legally legitimate, and therefore distinctly different than the marauding groups of (in some cases Iranian-backed) thug gangs regardless of whether barnaby personally thinks so or not.



See above.


Iran has a vested interest in the outcome of Iraq. That is beyond dispute, it's right next door and they want a (best case scenario for them) Shiite state. They want to ensure that the future Iraq will not be a security threat to them.

They want a lot of things, and there is plenty of evidence that they are actively involved in Iraq, participating in a longstanding blood feud by attacking the citizens, our forces and (non-Shiite) Iraqi police forces....what you euphemistically call "assistance of the resistance" which is actually a form of genocide because Sunnis are identified by their last names, not belief system. Considering your position on law-enforcement in general that I have discerned from your prior posts (that it shouldn't exist) this is unsurprising. However, for those who believe in the existence of government, it is destabilizing and presents our soldiers on the ground with a problem. That doesn't mean I support an invasion (airstrike, whatever) of Iran. There are forces from all over the middle east in Iraq, too. Iran is simply one (large) player. In short, when we are speaking of Sunni and Shiite militia groups there are no truly "good guys" in Iraq. Everyone has dirty hands.

Iran hated Saddam and they are still fighting a proxy war with his supporters in Iraq. They also have a huge Shiite population, the ONLY country in the area that has an overwhelming majority of Shiite.. the next country closest is Iraq (other than a tiny island). The disagreements between the sects are rooted deep in history since 632 AD.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21745.pdf

I really wish I could look at the world through a peachy lense such as yourself in that Iran would never provide weapon support to other Shiite's in Iraq at the moment or WMD's to Hezzbollah.

That's about as inconceivable as the US giving Russia the secret to build nuclear weapons during the cold war.

Also if you read the bottom of the article you linked, it doesn't go well with the flow of the rest of it.

Well Iran was put on that axis of evil list. So I don’t think Iran would sit by. I think such is also true with North Korea. About the only thing that can guarantee you protection these days from invasion is nuclear weapons. Since the onset of such devices major world war has pretty much ceased to exist, because its not a proposition in which war could bring treasure overall. I think its the same logic in why you don’t see warfare being conducted for control of the earths poles. Our dear leader named of various nations, said they have to do and then started to invade, so I am sure following suit many in Iran, and North Korea got a bit anxious over all of this, thus the push for the bomb for protection. One way not to survive the modern world is to use nuclear weapons, Iran to use or supply a nuclear weapons is basically to guarantee itself becoming a glass parking lot, its the same with north Korea, the idea to them I imagine is that the possession of such items would decrease the likelihood of invasion, at least that’s my take on it. With all the time AQ or the Taliban have been around, or terrorist groups for that matter, why have they not procured even one artillery shell of nerve gas?

So its like this. Iran uses nuclear weapons, or supplies nuclear weapon = Iran simply not existing anymore, its the same with North Korea, and again for what’s its worth the idea terrorist groups have been around forever they still don’t posses wmds. I mean even while communist Russia was collapsing at the end of the cold war nothing occurred, they accepted that defeat rather then a WMD war, and even while they posses who knows how large an arsenal of WMD's, need money, you still don’t find such on the black market. You can find all the AK's you want and other traditional arms, but no WMD.

As bad as it might sound, the U.S has supplied WMD though before, but that’s not hypocrisy, its patriotism.

Did Saddam Hussein ask the United States military to invade, overthrow, and execute him? Yes or no. You seem to ignore the fact that there was a sovereign Iraqi government in place prior to our invasion that was fully recognized under the same charter of the UN that you referenced above, right up until we overthrew it without the United Nations approval. This is extremely annoying to sit here and explain the obvious to you. As if you just woke up from a Rip Van Winkle sleep and are only aware of the al-Malaki government. International Law is whatever the United States wants it to be. Don't make a legal argument for our presence in Iraq since we started an illegal war with an illegal invasion. Are you really this easily led by our government to think Saddam Hussein never existed? Do you have thoughts of your own or do you just wait for the State Dept. to tell you what to think?

I did not ask you about the good guys and the bad guys. I asked if Iran has a right to intervene in the conflict? Yes or no. Quit acting like Bill Frist and answer the darn question.

I'm ignoring it because it has nothing to do with this topic. I'm not going to go into UNSCR, or ceasefire agreements and what their violation means, on this thread. Bottom line...Did the UN place any resolution condemning the act up for a vote? No. Did the Iranian government put intervention in Iraq up to a vote with it's representatives get a green light authorizing military action that I am not aware of? Gee...Last I heard, they were denying all accusations that they are taking part in any "resistance movements" in Iraq. Is Iran at war with Iraq and US coalition forces? This is a fact of which I was unaware. That would certainly change things.



See above. I've answered you repeatedly. There have actually been three separate, distinct conflicts in Iraq since 2003 from a legal perspective. The first war was the invasion itself and the toppling of Saddam. The second was the occupation and administration of the country by US military forces (akin to our administration of Japan until a new government was elected after WWII). The third conflict is the war we're in now, which is assisting a recognized and sovereign government in its internal defense. No, Iran doesn't have the "right to intervene" unless the Iraqi government invites them to do so. And they obviously know it...they certainly aren't publicly claiming this "right" that you have so graciously bestowed on them.

America's intervention, or even the UN's involvement with Iraq did not start in 2003. It seems extremely unfair from my own readings of your argument for you to take members to task for ignoring what you call "facts" and yet you seem to be very loose with your own facts. Was Iraq a sovereign nation before invasion? That is a question or point of debate I often ask here at because I feel that it is not as hard and concrete of a fact as many often like to portray it. The UN authorized the invasion of Iraq in 1991, this same resolution was then later used to justify the continuation of the NFZ in Iraq that was a policy upheld and active until 2003. In fact the most common argument from the critics of the NFZ was that it was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. You can disagree with the justifications for the lawfulness of the NFZ all you want but the fact remains that this dispute of legality of continued military intervention and Iraq's sovereignty was not an issue that was first invented or asked in regards to the current war in Iraq. Where were the outcries of illegal actions in 1991-2003? The US (and others) was bombing Iraq throughout all those years and international law was cited every time as a justification. Our government (and others) always mantained the idea that our permission to enter was granted and that we had not yet exited.

I don't understand your argument about Iran's right to intervene. You are basing this on what right? Human right? International law? Islamic law? I have no idea. Do you also believe Iran has the right to intervene in Lebanon? Perhaps if you read how the UN has interpreted this intervention (hint resolution 1559) and the militant groups who also claim to fight the occupation you could better explain how this right of Iran's manifests itself in international law.

Iraq was a sovereign nation prior to the invasion of 2003 with a recognized President, Saddam Hussein. Those are facts. Can you dispute that Saddam Hussein was not the President of Iraq? Can you prove that Iraq was not a sovereign recognized nation? You cannot. You know why you can't? Because they're facts.

The outcries against illegal actions are right here. You'll notice this article was written in 1998 and it references an interview with then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from 1996. Whether or not you heard those outcries is the real question.

The reason I defend Iran's right to intervene is because our President and others on this board are claiming Iran is somehow interfering where they don't belong. My argument is if the United States has a "Coalition of the Willing" then the Iraqi insurgency can call on their allies and get military assistance. If you disagree, explain why. If you point to legality don't bother explaining because it will be a waste of time. There is no such thing as legality when the United States is the pre-eminent military force on the planet and do not even belong to the International Criminal Court so they couldn't be tried for war crimes even if they did commit them. Just use the "Our Guns are Bigger" argument. At least it will be true instead of some facade about legal authority.

barnaby:

The people of Iraq are sovereign, not Saddam Hussein, and not the Iraqi Ba'ath Party. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party otherwise did not represent the sovereign will of the Iraqi people. Accordingly, in taking out Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, we did not violate the sovereign will of the people of Iraq. Your premise that the former government of Iraq was sovereign would allow the smallest, most militant group of humans you could find, to seize power, brutally suppress the majority of people in the nation and the exercise of their sovereignty, and then get to claim that somehow they are sovereign.

But this is why Dubya is for democracy, since if all political power is inherent in the people, the only way to express that sovereignty is one human, one vote. The only distortion with that practice in our system is that we have the various states, so as a means of preserving state sovereignty, each state, no matter the population therein, has only the two US Senators. The cruel irony is that no matter what you might think of our invasion, we nevertheless afforded the people of Iraq a fuller expression of their sovereignty than the late Mr. Hussein and his Ba'ath Party ever allowed.

Oh, and aren't you one of those who have complained about that certain episode in Chile, i.e., the episode involving the late Salvador Allende? What is the basis of the claim that our involvement in that episode was illegal and otherwise improper? That Allende was duly elected? Thank you for proving my point. My above premise is simply the negative restatement of yours, i.e., that if you aren't duly elected then you have neither legitimancy nor sovereignty. I otherwise believe that such is the point of those here in the US who keep speaking of how some "stole" an election or two [which is not to concede that either or both of the elections was in fact "stolen"].

Lastly, simply recall that video of what happened when Saddam assumed power, and how he called out those names and had those humans executed. In doing so, he proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was neither legitimate nor sovereign, as he executed the chosen representatives of the sovereign people of Iraq. Now if you wish to claim that the rest of the world chose to abandon their own sacred notion that all political power is inherent in the people and so recognized Saddam & Co., then you and I stand in a rather complete agreement.

Barnaby, I understand what you're saying, and while I agree that our invasion of Iraq was illegal, morally reprehensible, and a 400 billion dollar + (so far) fiasco, I have to differ with you on this. We had no "right" to preemptively attack Iraq, and Iran has no "right" to enter the conflict now. Are we hypocritical for meddling, being the biggest "meddlers" of the modern age? Surely. But just as you condemn our nation, rightly so, for our foreign policies, so should you condemn any nation that acts likewise.



Sort of splitting hairs there. The majority of the voters in 2000 did not want Bush. The majority of Americans want to leave Iraq. The majority of us do not care for Bush or his policies. Do you say then that he has no sovereignty over this nation? That if another country invades us to remove him, that would be ok?

Philosophically, I am with you to a degree. The sovereignty of the rulers of non-democratic nations ideally should not be recognized, nor dealt with. Realpolitik, however, dictates otherwise, for right or wrong. We would swiftly exhaust our resources trying to overthrow all the unloved rulers of the world. And then where would our Beloved Corporations build their factories?!?! My gods, imagine the economic carnage if we started truly applying democratic ideals and universal human rights to all our foreign policies!

And yet I've explained why and you cannot respond except to continue to ask the same question over and over.



I'm not surprised you feel it's a waste of time, because it is where your argument falls apart. "Everyone should do whatever they like" is a thug argument. If Iran wants to intervene, let them vote on military intervention, LIKE WE DID. You've said in anther thread that you regard Iran as a democracy. Let them follow the laws of armed conflict, and behave like one. That would be a modicum of apples to apples.


Of course every country in the world prosecutes its own military forces, even those who sign on to the ICC, from the British to the Pakistani UN peacekeepers. But don't let the facts interfere with a good rant.

1) Iran is not a threat to the U.S. The question should be, given the encroachment of US military facilities, is the US a threat to Iran?

2) The intelligence is the problem, and clarity will not be achieved until stove pipe agencies are prevented from sidestepping professional intelligence gatherers.

3) There is mounting evidence the nuclear program cannot be developed to industrial scale. This means they cannot proceed to any meaningful type of enrichment. The rest of the arguement becomes null and void after that.

4) Considering Iran reached out a few years ago though a swiss diplomat and then through a 16 page letter, I'd say there is motivation on their end to talk. At this point what is there left to lose?

Can you provide some documentation on this statement? From what I have read the 3,000 + centrifuges will allow Iran to produce highly enriched uranium if they so chose.


“David Albright, a well-known expert on Iran’s nuclear program, who a few months ago was somewhat optimistic that a diplomatic solution could be found to halt Iran’s nuclear program, has become increasingly pessimistic. He says that not only is he convinced Iran wants to build nuclear weapons…. They are making progress. They’re enriching more uranium in the first cascade and one expects them to enrich more uranium in the second cascade. The bottom line is that the physical, technical problems have not stopped them from making progress. There’ve been some press reports that state they’ve had overheating problems or the first cascade isn’t working. But those reports I think have been incorrect or overblown. The P-1 is a difficult machine to work; it’s difficult to run a cascade of P-1s.
• P-1 means it’s the original Pakistan design?
Yes. And Iranians don’t call it that. We’re calling it that because it is a Pakistani design. And the Pakistanis modified it a little bit from the original Dutch design that A.Q. Khan stole. A.Q. Khan stole the design in Holland
• Well how many cascades do you need to actually make enough enriched uranium that would be significant enough to make a nuclear device?
We think that Iran would need at least 1,500 P-1’s operating.
1,500?
1,500. They’d have to operate quite well together. And the cascade would have to be improved. Iran built an inefficient cascade. So they have to redesign the cascade somewhat so that it would produce enriched uranium more efficiently. Now, I think they can do that but if they don’t do it, then they’re going to need more than 1,500 centrifuges, more like 2,000, 3,000.
• Would you be very concerned if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon?
Yes. I would be. I think it could be very dangerous. And it’d certainly make life for the United States in the Middle East much harder. Iran would become a greater regional power and may become more aggressive in its diplomacy. Other countries in the region may be faced with a hard choice. Do they get nuclear weapons? Or do they just allow Israel and Iran to have nuclear weapons and be seen as lesser powers because of it. What happens with Saudi Arabia? What do they do? It’s a much more unstable Middle East with Iran having nuclear weapons.”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12051/albri...zman%3Fpage%3D2

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran is currently installing 3,000 centrifuges, a top lawmaker said Saturday in an announcement underlining that the country will continue to develop its nuclear program despite U.N. sanctions.The lawmaker, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, said the installation under way at an Iranian uranium enrichment plant “stabilizes Iran’s capability in the field of nuclear technology,” IRNA reported
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16842959/

Query whether a nuclear Iran won't make the region more stable not less. Had Iran had the bomb, Iraq would never have invaded it and started the Iran-Iraq war, which ultimately led to the Gulf War, which led to the current Iraqi fiasco.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers, making it insecure and unstable. Iran's president is mentally dubious, but he is powerless. The ruling counsel of mullahs, while typical odious religious fundamentalists, are at least not apocalyptic in outlook.

I don't know the answer, but I can't imagine anything more destabilizing than Bush's policies toward the middle east up to now.

.


Well that wasn’t going to happen of course because Iraq was a minimum of 5 and maybe 10 years ahead of Iran. They have been in an arms race for decades and it is said this is why Iraq invaded Kuwait. He was spending so much $ on his WMD programs he was in debt up to his ears. What could have happened if we did not push him out of Kuwait is he could have nuked Iran off the planet and taken the country and with nukes in hand amidst ½ the world oil he would have been in a very powerful position.




Surrounded by who? Same people who were there with nukes decades ago and, in case you haven’t noticed no country has threatened Iran – on the contrary Iran has and continues to do so through and with support for Hammas.

As I have already argued that is not the solid fact as you present it. You did not address my point, the continued presence and application of the NFZ places your assertion of "fact" into question. Critics of the NFZ claimed it was a violation of Iraq's sovereignty but supporters of the NFZ justified it with international law and claimed that Iraq had not yet been granted full and total sovereignty over it's lands. If you are going to keep citing facts you should have to consider all of them, not just the ones you like.


You have also cited an article that was written 7 years into the process of the NFZ and Iraqi sanctions, and this article was likely a reaction to the escalation with Iraq because of claimed failures to adhere to international law. Once again Iraq's sovereignty was further claimed to be null and void. So I don't understand how this article you have presented or this timeline you have helped establish supports your argument against mine. Obviously this outcry was very muted, Clinton was never called a killer or a war criminal, this was never a position well represented and reported on in the US media. Also this article supports my argument that 2003 was not the first intervention, not the first disagreement over Iraqi sovereignty and not the first time the US cited international law for it's military campaign in Iraq post 1991. This article in fact maintains my claim that the US intervention in Iraq and the US policy of not recognizing Iraqi sovereignty was ongoing and not a point of contention or conflict that our current president Bush created.

When Tel-Aviv & New York are scorch marks will you tell me again that a nuclear Iran will make the region more stable?

President Tom of Iran believes he is "directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi"

you know what that means????



BOOM!!!

Let's see, India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel.

If the US were surrounded by nuclear powers, don't you think we would want a bomb?

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just an obvious concern of Iran's. The way to deal with it is actually talk with the Iranians and address their legitimate concerns, if they can be addressed, instead of doing what the conserative party has done: called Iran "evil" and conveniently "forgot" (as Rice usually does) the letter the Iranians sent to open up talks.



So you think that the Iranian leadership is suicidal and starts wars it can't win (kind of like Bush in Iraq).


Any evidence of that or simply your buying in to conservative rhetoric about islamo-fasciam (a registered trademark of the RNC)

Bucket, I'm not sure you care about facts so I'm going to give you some just in case you do. This is a copy of the United Nations Charter. In Article 2 of this Charter it states the principles of membership.OK, so now that it is proven that all nations that belong to the United Nations are equally sovereign only one question remains. Is Iraq a member of the United Nations? So I looked up and found this.You cannot use flexible interpretation to squirm your way out of this. It is international law stating clearly and obviously that all members are sovereign. But let us look at your claim that the No Fly Zones interfered with the sovereignty of Iraq. No-Fly ZonesThe United Nations did not formally authorize a No-Fly Zone. The sovereignty of a nation is determined by the United Nations, not the United States. If we take the U.S., the U.K., and France at their word and believe that they had authority under Resoution 688 to create a No-Fly Zone then all we have to do is look at Resolution 688. I can't post the whole resolution, but it's not that long so you should be able to read it easily. The phrase "No-Fly Zone" does not appear in there. This just backs up my claim that United States does not adhere to the law, we instead follow a playground policy of "What are you gonna do about it?"


"This article was likely?" Umm.... the article was about the effects of the sanctions. The quote directly mentions the death of children because of sanctions. But you are right that it wasn't widely reported because if people found out about this there would be political pressure to lift the sanctions. So this story doesn't get mainstream attention. Even the killing in Darfur isn't on the news very much. Our media, both FOX and MSNBC, covered live the Anna Nicole Smith trial. Yet, people in Darfur are dying every day over God knows what. Which is more important, Anna Nicole Smith or genocide in Darfur? Our media outlets cover what is important to them, not what is actually important. Anna Nicole's lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court is still undecided. This lawsuit will determine the rightful heir to half a billion dollars. To the media, that's more important than dead Africans or dead Iraqi children.

You keep stating how the US policy does not recognize Iraq's sovereignty. I fully agree. The United States doesn't care about laws. Our government does whatever it wants and it doesn't matter what treaties we signed or what international laws we adhere to. We do whatever we want.

To Mrs. PigPen,

Read some what I wrote to bucket to give you an idea of what I mean when I say the United States doesn't adhere to law. The reason I don't want to hear about law is because I know it doesn't matter to the United States, but you think my argument falls apart when we apply law to it. Well read above and read below. The Nuremburg PrinciplesWell, we know Iraq did not want war with the United States. So we can easily see that we waged a war of aggression against a peaceful nation. That's the international law, but again, the United States doesn't care about law. We also have Bush guilty of conspiring to go to war with Blair. Secret Memo But you could go back even further to the 2000 Debate with Al GoreAlso, addressing your cheap shot about my rant, I know that all nations prosecute their own soldiers, I am not considering that as part of the reason why we are not a member of the International Criminal Court. The reason we are not a member is because our leadership would be subject to prosecution, not the rank and file. Take the example of Germany filing a suit against Rumsfeld. Bush knew this, that's why he didn't sign on. Because the International Community wouldn't go after PFC Schmuckatelli, they would go after the civilian leadership.

Ive heard this type of argument before but what it fails to address is human nature. Citing the US giving Russia the technology is one example of this. Russia acquired at least some of the technology to build a nuclear weapon from a spy within the CIA. The gravity of this, two bitter enemies at the time, and yet the "other side" is helped from the other. Why? Because humans have ambition that is limited to themselves not caring what