Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

US: "Iran will reap painful consequences..."

Old 03-05-06, 04:14 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,905
US: "Iran will reap painful consequences..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060305/...ar_iran_usa_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday warned that Iran faced "painful consequences" if it continued sensitive nuclear activities and said the problem would become increasingly difficult to resolve if the international community did not confront it.

ADVERTISEMENT (KBR Commercial: "We were successful in Iraq, and now we're movin' on to Iran. [pictures of smiling Iranian children])

Ahead of what could be a crucial international meeting on Iran on Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton reaffirmed that the United States will use "all tools at our disposal" to thwart Iran's nuclear program and is already "beefing up defensive measures" to do so.

"The Iran regime must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences," he told 4,500 delegates to the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel U.S. lobbying group.

Monday's meeting of the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency governing board is expected to take stock of Iran's continued defiance of U.S. and European demands to end sensitive weapons-related uranium enrichment activity and then hand the case over to the UN Security Council.

The United States is discussing a 30- to 60-day deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program and cooperate with international inspectors or face intensified pressure in the security council, a U.S. official told Reuters.

Iran on Sunday again threatened to begin large-scale nuclear enrichment if the case is taken up by the security council.

Bolton said Iran poses a "comprehensive threat" as a state-sponsor of terrorism and a nuclear aspirant, and so "we must be prepared to ... use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat."

'LONGER WE WAIT ... HARDER IT WILL BECOME TO SOLVE'

"The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve," he warned.

Bolton reaffirmed that Washington does not see the security council moving quickly to impose sanctions on Iran. Veto-wielding members Russia and China have made clear their reluctance.

But he said many other governments have begun to speak publicly of sanctions, implying they may take action outside the security council.

The United States has had sweeping sanctions on Iran since after the 1979 Iranian revolution, but it is looking at ways to further use its Proliferation Security Initiative to deny Iran materials it needs for its nuclear program, Bolton said.

The United States and key allies, led by the European Union trio of Britain, France and Germany, are convinced Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists it is only interested in civilian nuclear energy.

Former chief UN weapons inspector David Kay, who also spoke at the AIPAC conference, discussed the limits of weapons inspections and said a conclusive judgment about Iran's program may only come too late, after it conducts a weapons test.

The IAEA is expected to weigh a report on Monday by the IAEA chief saying Iran has ignored a February 4 resolution urging it to shelve uranium-enrichment work to ease the crisis.

Instead, Iran is vacuum-testing 20 centrifuges, which convert uranium into fuel for power plants or, if highly purified, bombs, the report said. Iran also plans to install 3,000 centrifuges later this year in a push to "industrial scale" enrichment, according to the IAEA report.

The IAEA board voted on February 4 to report Iran to the security council, but on the condition the world body would not flex its muscle at least until after Monday's session.

If the security council did not act in a timely manner, Bolton said, the council's credibility would be damaged.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 04:53 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,140
Perhaps if we hit them really quick and with such power that they just surrender immediately? I call my plan "Shock and awe". Let's give it a shot, what could possibly go wrong?
General Zod is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 04:55 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Truthfully, I can't see the US population as a whole supporting any military action with Iran right now ... call it fatigue, call it whatever you want, but it won't be popular at all.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 04:59 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I doubt the US will launch a full fledged invasion, unless the Europeans provide the bulk of the manpower. Most likely we will see an intensive bombing campaign.
Neither an invasion nor a bombing campaign (which would accomplish precious little) is going to occur.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 05:09 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I would imagine so.

We've apparently accepted North Korea having nuclear weapons.

I think there are 2 assumptions made that may or may not be true: 1. Iran is pursing a nuclear weapons program, despite what they say; 2. That Iran would use nuclear weapons if they possessed them.

It seems I remember an assumption that a rather close neighbor of Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons policy. That didn't prove to be so, did it?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 05:54 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Are they boasting that their nuclear program is a weapons program?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 06:34 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
For all practical intents they are. You don't need nuclear energy when inundated with gas and oil.
They are and have continulally denied their nuclear program is a weapons program. They just denied it again about 20 minutes ago on television.

Perhaps they would like to export a portion of their oil & natural gas that they now use for domestic sources of energy.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 06:49 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
As a former employee of the AEC, I can tell you it's not all that easy.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 06:57 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Saying that Iran would not benefit from nuclear energy is absurd. They could make far more money in exports (and increase their international pull).
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 07:21 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,905
Originally Posted by classicman2
Neither an invasion nor a bombing campaign (which would accomplish precious little) is going to occur.
I wouldn't rule out strategic bombing.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 07:38 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,880
ADVERTISEMENT (KBR Commercial: "We were successful in Iraq, and now we're movin' on to Iran. [pictures of smiling Iranian children])
Looks like Haliburton/KBR are getting a little ahead of themselves in the old propoganda department.
Jason is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 07:42 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 866
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
So the US, Israel, Europe and India will accept a nuclear-armed Iran?
Yes. Except maybe Israel. A lil iffy there.
SeekOnce is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 07:45 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
I wouldn't rule out strategic bombing.
Since it's a consensus among the military that it would do very little, if any, good, I would rule it out.

Bombing would only produce negative results - inflame the people, for one thing.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 09:06 PM
  #14  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,000
Originally Posted by classicman2
They are and have continulally denied their nuclear program is a weapons program. They just denied it again about 20 minutes ago on television.

Perhaps they would like to export a portion of their oil & natural gas that they now use for domestic sources of energy.
I know you're playing Devil's Advocate here c-man. I know you're not that naive.

I don't think we can invade Iran. They have a much larger military than Iraq and a larger population to control.

I don't know how effective a bombing campaign will be because the production facilities are so spread out and buried under mountains. I do know that Israel will not stand for a nuclear Iran, so they may initiate something down the road.

Given the choice of invasion or bombing, I would pick bombing, but I almost always do. If Iran blows up a nuclear weapon in Tel-Aviv, would we invade then?
VinVega is online now  
Old 03-06-06, 09:26 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Did I say I was in favor of invasion?

I'm not playing the devil's advocate; and, I think anyone who thinks bombing is the solution is terribly naive. The folks who would have to carry that bombing out don't think it's feasible.

Bombing will do no good. We don't where to bomb for one thing.

If you don't believe bombing would piss a bunch of the populace off ...., well....

What you do with a nuclear Iran is exactly what we did with the Soviet Union. You make it abundantly clear to them what will happen if they use nuclear weapons - they'll cease to exist.

We seem to have a bunch of war mongers on this forum. Of course, they don't have to do the fighting or dying, do they?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 09:31 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by darkessenz
The above reservations made little difference in the move to attack Iraq...
What we now witness in Iraq would be a tea party compared to what would happen in Iran if we chose to invade.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-06-06, 10:44 PM
  #17  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Today, US warns Iran.
Tomorrow, Iran warns US.
Day after tomorrow, EU warns Iran.
Day after that, Irans warns EU.
And the following day, Israel warns Iran.
After, that following day, Iran warns Israel.
Myster X is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 12:33 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In the woods
Posts: 1,020
Originally Posted by classicman2



What you do with a nuclear Iran is exactly what we did with the Soviet Union. You make it abundantly clear to them what will happen if they use nuclear weapons - they'll cease to exist.
The problem with this is since Iran supports terrorism and harbors terrorists, who is to say a group doesnt get a hold of one of Iran's new toys and detonate it in a major US city?

How can the US know for sure who to hold accountable? That is the fear.
bballing is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 06:30 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by bballing
The problem with this is since Iran supports terrorism and harbors terrorists, who is to say a group doesnt get a hold of one of Iran's new toys and detonate it in a major US city?

How can the US know for sure who to hold accountable? That is the fear.
You can make the same argument with Pakistan, can't you?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 06:53 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Will you do the dying when they wipe out an Israeli city?

This situation is not comparable with the cold war. These "people" cannot be deterred. They are not rational. They don't respond to incentives; you cannot apply conventional game theory to them. They don't mind killing themselves as long as they can take a busload of Jewish schoolchildren to the afterlife with them.

There is no optimal solution to this. Stop looking for one.
Of course it's comparable - not exact.

The Soviet Union promoted wars of revolution against American interests. There were crazies in the Soviet military who wanted war. They installed missiles 90 miles from the U.S. Why no use - the Soviet leaders weren't interested in the destruction of the Soviet Union, and they wanted to live.

The leaders of Iraq are not interested in marytdom either. They don't want to see their country devasted. They realize what would happen.......

I'm not looking for an optimal solution. I believe in pragmatism. From reading a number of your posts - you obviously don't put much stock in pragmatism.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 10:00 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The Jerusalem Post

AP

Iran is offering to suspend full-scale uranium enrichment for up to two years, a diplomat said Tuesday. The offer reflected Teheran's attempts to escape Security Council action over the activity, which can be used to make nuclear arms.

The diplomat told The Associated Press that the offer was made in the context of contacts between Iran and Russia on moving Teheran's enrichment program to Russia. But the diplomat, who insisted on anonymity for discussing the confidential information, said the Iranians were not prepared to freeze small-scale enrichment, a key demand of Moscow, Washington and other nations.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 07:25 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Godfather
Thread Starter
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,905
Originally Posted by bballing
The problem with this is since Iran supports terrorism and harbors terrorists, who is to say a group doesnt get a hold of one of Iran's new toys and detonate it in a major US city?

How can the US know for sure who to hold accountable? That is the fear.
This is exactly why the US will never use nuclear weapons. Politics of the last 20 years have made war a very soft initiative, with little bite.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 09:58 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
DarkestPhoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,246
Originally Posted by classicman2
What we now witness in Iraq would be a tea party compared to what would happen in Iran if we chose to invade.
Not if the American public allowed us to put out the troop levels we'd need for the amount of time we'd need them. The nice part would be that any border problems we had would be gone/minimalized from three countries. The negative would be that we would now be undoubtedly stressed militarily, and the only way to combat that is to start becoming really, really competetive in the job market.

To maintain these levels it'd be nice to have some support from the UN, but I don't see that as happening like it should. It must be dealt with one way or another, though. This dude is a complete fuckin' loon.

Also, I think the people there would be more receptive to receive our freedom. More help from the populace would dramatically change the battlefield, and our theoretical 'allies' haven't been systematically slaughtered for the last 35 years.
DarkestPhoenix is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 10:03 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,880
Originally Posted by bballing
The problem with this is since Iran supports terrorism and harbors terrorists, who is to say a group doesnt get a hold of one of Iran's new toys and detonate it in a major US city?

How can the US know for sure who to hold accountable? That is the fear.
As long as nuclear weapons exist, there's the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands, and that includes the weapons in America's arsenal (although the possibility is admittedly *very* remote).

And even though Iran approves of terrorists/terrorism, do you really think the government will be willing to hand over their most powerful political tool to a group that they have minimal, if any, control over?
Jason is offline  
Old 03-07-06, 10:12 PM
  #25  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,215
Originally Posted by classicman2
Of course it's comparable - not exact.

The Soviet Union promoted wars of revolution against American interests. There were crazies in the Soviet military who wanted war. They installed missiles 90 miles from the U.S. Why no use - the Soviet leaders weren't interested in the destruction of the Soviet Union, and they wanted to live.

The leaders of Iraq are not interested in marytdom either. They don't want to see their country devasted. They realize what would happen.......

I'm not looking for an optimal solution. I believe in pragmatism. From reading a number of your posts - you obviously don't put much stock in pragmatism.


No, not total devastation, but I will say again that you are not aware of who is currently leading Iran. Think bringing about the end times. Seriously.
Pharoh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.