Here We Go Again

Rice says Iran ‘is the central bank for terrorism’
Tehran says U.N. action on its nuclear program is ‘unjust’

WASHINGTON - Iran is probably the No. 1 challenge to the United States, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday after Tehran vowed no compromise in a standoff with the West over its nuclear programs.

Rice, who wants the United Nations Security Council this month to start taking action against Iran that could lead to sanctions, also repeated concerns that Washington believes Tehran supports anti-Israel militants and meddles in neighboring Iraq.

“We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran, whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East we would like to see developed,” Rice said at a Senate hearing.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“This is a country determined to develop a nuclear weapon ... and is the central bank for terrorism,” she added.

'Unjust'
Iran said earlier Thursday that it won’t be bullied into abandoning its nuclear program, rejecting its referral to the U.N. Security Council as “unjust.”

“The people of Iran will not accept coercion and unjust decisions by international organizations,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by Iranian television during a visit to Iran’s western province of Lorestan. “Enemies cannot force the Iranian people to relinquish their rights.”

“The era of bullying and brutality is over,” he added.

The statements came a day after Iran threatened the United States with “harm and pain” as the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency ended a three-day meeting in Vienna, Austria, over Iran’s nuclear program, formally opening the path to Security Council action.

The Security Council, whose action could range from a mild statement urging compliance to sanctions or even military measures, was expected to debate the issue next week.

The IAEA had put the council on alert over the issue last month but delayed any action to give more time for diplomacy under an agreement by the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain — the five permanent Security Council members that wield veto power.

Wednesday meeting
The five countries met in New York on Wednesday to discuss a first response to the crisis.

Washington is seeking harsh measures against Iran, but economic and political sanctions are unlikely because of opposition from Russia and China, which have strategic and commercial ties with Tehran.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns suggested Wednesday that America would push for sanctions if appeals and demands failed.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov indicated that Moscow would not support sanctions and he ruled out military action.

Wednesday’s IAEA meeting featured an intense debate over a critical report on Iran’s nuclear program. Soon after the meeting ended, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he would send the report to the Security Council within 24 hours.

A continuation of diplomacy?
ElBaradei, however, cast Security Council involvement as a continuation of diplomacy with Iran. He suggested Washington might need to talk to Iran directly if negotiations reach the stage of focusing on security guarantees to Tehran in exchange for concessions on its nuclear program.

ElBaradei’s report accused Iran of withholding information, possessing plans linked to nuclear weapons and refusing to freeze uranium enrichment — a possible pathway to nuclear arms.

Tehran’s newspapers published news of the decision on their front pages Thursday. The official Persian-language daily Iran called the move “a message of weakness and failure” by the nuclear agency.

Iran claims its nuclear program is peaceful and only aimed at generating electricity, but an increasing number of countries have come to share the U.S. view that Tehran is seeking to develop atomic weapons.

The U.S. and its European allies want Iran to give up uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or materials for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has rejected the demand, saying it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

So does anyone else see any similarities to what happened in Iraq a few years ago? This could become a VERY dangerous situation if Iran does in fact have nuclear, or close to nuclear capabilities. And our ambassador saying that there will pain delievered to Iran if they do not agree to halt their nuclear development program? Honestly, when is this thirst for blood going to end?

I first supported the war in Iraq but now I'm against it. Now, I want this shit to stop. If we try to start some war with Iran, it'll be like putting our dicks in a bear trap.

Yes, our army is more advanced blah blah blah but Iran won't be a simple push over. Their people seem to be more centralized and motivated with their leaders than Iraq. Also, a country trying to get nukes is not very good. They may not have them yet but I'm sure they can make a nuclear dirty bomb and those things aren't nice.

"The statements came a day after Iran threatened the United States with “harm and pain” as the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency ended a three-day meeting in Vienna, Austria, over Iran’s nuclear program, formally opening the path to Security Council action."

So does anyone else see any similarities to what happened in Iraq a few years ago? This could become a VERY dangerous situation if Iran does in fact have nuclear, or close to nuclear capabilities. And our ambassador saying that there will pain delievered to Iran if they do not agree to halt their nuclear development program? Honestly, when is this thirst for blood going to end?

I thought it was the other way around as far as the rhetoric. Iran said they were going to inflict "harm and pain" on the U.S.????

It is a troublesome situation.

See, there's nothing we really CAN do about Iran beyond sanctions and whatnot -- and they know it. For all the blustering the administration does about Iran, we know that they know that we as a country cannot support another major military action (we simply do not have the resources nor the manpower to do it without literally RUINING the U.S.A.) Iran has everything Iraq did (and if their potential military capabilities are as strong as they're trying to lead us to believe, even more) plus one MAJOR advantage -- a greater unity as a country. It would take a truly concerted global effort to reign them in, and militarily speaking, with Russia and China making their stances pretty well known, it would be quite a press to find further assistance -- especially when one considers how much the U.S. and EU3 have on our plates still just dealing with Iraq.

The thing that worries me, is that (all things considered) the powers-that-be in this country strike me as the kind of institution that might actually consider such activity -- like Iran is just another country we can forceably manhandle. I can tell you one thing, that level of military activity isn't going to happen with an all-volunteer army, which means suddenly the alternative (as much as some people around here refuse to even acknowledge the idea of the administration considering it) becomes a troubling reality.

Unfortunately, Iran has spotted an opportunity, and they're exploiting it to the fullest. Think about it: the major western powers of the world are involved fully in Iraq and "the hunt for terrorists", the Muslim world (a large part of the Eastern world that ISN'T China or Russia) harbor very ill feelings toward the west (whether they're justified or not), and the only two real powers with offensive capability in the East are already deeply involved with Iran for finance and trade reasons.

And so I ask you to ponder this (It's been on my mind for a while now): which country is the ONLY one left in the world that is: A) NOT a majority Muslim country, B) Not bound to Iran by any significant financial means, and C) possessing a massive population capable of being armed quickly by a government that is VERY industrious and quick to adapt?

Anyone wondering why we've suddenly cozied up to India -- with Nuclear nonetheless?

I thought it was the other way around as far as the rhetoric. Iran said they were going to inflict "harm and pain" on the U.S.????

It is a troublesome situation.

Yeah, about a week ago a US ambassador at the Atomic energy coalition said if Iran didn't back down there would be swift and painful repercussions.

I hate to say it, but I actually somewhat agree with the Iranian president, in that we don't have the right to force Iran to give up pursuit the pursuit of their nuclear energy program. I certainly would not like to see Iran have nuclear capabilities, but who are we to make such a decision?

Yeah, about a week ago a US ambassador at the Atomic energy coalition said if Iran didn't back down there would be swift and painful repercussions.

I hate to say it, but I actually somewhat agree with the Iranian president, in that we don't have the right to force Iran to give up pursuit the pursuit of their nuclear energy program. I certainly would not like to see Iran have nuclear capabilities, but who are we to make such a decision?

OK got it. Thanks. That US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton dude. I guess Iran is just throwing the rhetoric back at us. If the you know what hits the fan I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive air strike or air war. Worked out great with Bill Clinton and Yugoslavia. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to handle the retaliation which will probably be terrorist type strikes since Iran has a great influence on the Shiites in Iraq. I would not underestimate Iran's military but I would not overestimate either.

"The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, in turn warned of "painful consequences" if Iran went ahead with the threat of enrichment. Enriching uranium can produce fuel for civilian power reactors, but if taken further it can produce fuel for nuclear warheads, he told the convention of an Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The US President, George Bush, has repeatedly said the possibility of military strikes are on the table even as Washington endorses an intense international diplomatic effort."

The Iranian nuclear enrichment program has two purposes. One to produce nuclear weapons so they can start WW3 by attacking Israel and two to provide such weapons to terrorists to attack the United States. The "Great Satan"!!

All the speeches in the world will not solve this issue and if we intend to stop them it will not be easy or pretty. I am not an advocate of the use of military force unless it is the only way to defend our country from attack. I have said since the Islamic revolution during the Carter administration that one day we would have to fight the Iranians and it appears that time is, unfortunately coming very soon unless the rest of the world sticks with us and stops the Iranians from procuring the weapons they want. This is an issue that will affect the entire world not just the US. Be prepared for the worst but hope for the best!!!

I honestly don't care anymore. Hell, I'm to the point where I don't even think i'll vote in the next presidential election.

The Iranian nuclear enrichment program has two purposes. One to produce nuclear weapons so they can start WW3 by attacking Israel and two to provide such weapons to terrorists to attack the United States. The "Great Satan"!!

That's a pretty bold statement with not a lot of evidence to support it, actually no evidence by my count.

Just food for thought, but did you ever wonder WHY the Islamic world hates the US? You trivialize it by saying they consider us "the great satan" and insinuate some sort of inferior, barbaric reasoning. But there actually are good reasons for them to despise our country and the way we conduct foreign politics, and I do not blame them one bit for that.

Considering the president of Iran called for the destruction of Israel, I don't think its wise to sit around doing nothing while they gain the capability.

Sure...the President of Iran wants to blow up Israel, we want to blow up Iran, terrorists want to blow up the US, we want to blow up terrorists...me bigger, me have bigger weapons...no me have bigger weapons...no me...It's ridiculous from all sides no matter how you look at it. Iran, the US, terrorists, they're all willing to do whatever it takes (including killings thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands innocents) to further their own cause. You'd be absolutely delusional to think that our motivation in this situation is purely to maintain world peace.

and you think if we dont attack them they wont attack us?

I dont like the thought of more war. I dont like the thought of us attacking. But unlike Iraq, Iran is BOASTING about their potential WMD producing abalities. If they bomb the hell out of Israel with weapons with fallout...guess what?...everyone feels it to some degree. If one goes off in the states that area is useless for a very long time. And quite frankly the thought of them making them en-mass for sale and use throughout the world irks me greatly.

Another tidbit for thought. The cold war had the threat of nuclar war always looming over our heads. Why was that different you might ask? If they bomed us, we would bomb them and vise-versa. Neather wanted to die, or to kill the rest of the world. Extremist Nations like Iran have no problem dying for their cause. This is proven time and time again with insurgants in Iraq FROM Iran. Infact with the blatent missuse of the Koran they teach that if they die killing us, they go to heaven. There is no soft-kill here, it would be very brutal and bloody...or worse even...

If I had to, I would even enlist to help fight this cause. Fuck world peace, this is about safeguarding our nation.

Sure...the President of Iran wants to blow up Israel, we want to blow up Iran, terrorists want to blow up the US, we want to blow up terrorists...me bigger, me have bigger weapons...no me have bigger weapons...no me....

First, we dont want to blow up Iran, we want to stop Iran from blowing up anyone.

Same with the terrorists.

Why does a police officer shoot a suspect who is armed and trying to kill someone? (S)He takes the blood onto his hands to save a life. Is it good killing one for another...no...but the one who chose to kill made that choice for himself, and the officer.

Why does a police officer shoot a suspect who is armed and trying to kill someone? (S)He takes the blood onto his hands to save a life. Is it good killing one for another...no...but the one who chose to kill made that choice for himself, and the officer.
But the cop has to be sure that whoever he shoots is armed and not just randomly shooting people because they look suspicious or because of what they hold as their opinion.
That's what it boils down to. How would you feel if your local PD starts shooting some random people because of suspicion based on how they look or because of their opinions? Wait, that would be like Fascism or something.

But when that person says they have a gun, and quickly reaches for their pocket it because a life and death choice.

Sure he might have nothing, but if he does and you take no action...something bad will happen.

Now that said, if we (not saying America nessarly) could check the nation throughly with coperation that could put the world at ease, no? But they have made it clear they are going to do whatever they want, and do not care about the rest of the world.

But when that person says they have a gun, and quickly reaches for their pocket it because a life and death choice.
Iraq is a perfect exmaple of this. What happened there?


Sure he might have nothing, but if he does and you take no action...something bad will happen.
Sure and if you take action where action was not needed, then worse can happen.


Now that said, if we (not saying America nessarly) could check the nation throughly with coperation that could put the world at ease, no? But they have made it clear they are going to do whatever they want, and do not care about the rest of the world.
I would agree that dangerous countries should be checked on to make sure nothing is in the works of being done to harm anyone. Now who's to decided who is dangerous? There are too many people, too many heads of state to all agree on everything.


So that's the problem, how do we give Iran the nuclear technology it needs to develop itself whilst still having tabs on the activity without breaching trust?

That's what the world should figure out instead of all this bullshit back and forth about hurting one another.

That's what the world should figure out instead of all this bullshit back and forth about hurting one another.

Major agreement on that one.

Bty, Iraq had chemical weapons at somepoint because they used them. The war out there has, IMO, gone too far. It should have ended quite a while back.

With Iran war may be nessary...but I dont see it as so yet. War is a tool when diplomacy has failed, and there are no other options.

Bty, how do you see it being worse when the officer shoots someone without a weapon than the suspect kills someone innocent? Just currious on how one is worse than the other?

Without going too far off the subject at hand with all these similies between a cop shotting a civilian and a country waging ware this is what I see it as.
There are other ways to subdue a man with a HOLSTERED gun rather than shoot him dead.

Anyways the point in hand here is that we were told that Iraq had WMD before the invasion, but have not found any until this day. This would be like a cop shooting someone who looked like they had a gun on them, only to find out they didnt.

And Iran is saying, give me access to a hunting rifle, where it can be used for good or bad...I hope I don't have to explain both here. But some people are denying Iran from having guns because they those people have said mean stuff. Now if there were a way of a better gun law where both parties can benefit from it...then everyone wins.


With all the people, resources and advancements this world has seen...it's a shame to see that we have had very little progress when it comes to international peace from where the world stood 50 years ago.

I think most of the worlds resources are misplaced.

[B] whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East we would like to see developed,” Rice said at a Senate hearing.




That line sums it all up.
That sort of an attitude does nothing but create enemies, great if you want a war, but pure BS if its said in the name of creating peace.

That's the sticking point with many people who are opposed to continued actions in the Middle East -- it's tough to get by a statement so boldly proclaiming our intentions: "the Middle East we would like to see developed." Granted, the Middle East has been the world's hotspot since time immemorial, but then again, it's also essentially the hub of humanity -- the crossroads of the world. Considering this, it isn't hard to understand why there will seemingly always be calls for "peace in the Middle East".

Is the Middle East WE want to see developed also the Middle East that it's inhabitants want? Who are we to dictate terms to another part of the world -- because we have a idea, and the power to pursue a course toward making it happen?

Iran wants to exercise its right to pursue nuclear ambitions, but they have a shitty track record of playing ball with the rest of the nuclear powers.

Then again who DOESN'T have shitty record when it comes to the handling of nuclear power? Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, "Star Wars", the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Ural Mts. in '57, Tokaimura, countless scares and evacuations, and Broken Arrows to beat the band. Our harping on Iran is pretty much the epitomy of a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

Clearly NO ONE should have access to nuclear weapons, but until we and the rest of the nuclear powers start phasing out our own arsenals, we really don't have the right to say shit one way or another. All we can do is continue to try and dissuade countries who are going to pursue the technology, in the name of halting potential continued proliferation (and at this stage in the game, Iran's claim that it is purely for energy reasons is STILL better than the reasons many of the other powers got into nuclear...) In the end, if it's their prerogative to do so, it's in all of our best interests to take them fully into the fold -- along with all of the responsibilities that come with this kind of power.

Sure Iran hid much of their nuclear intentions from the world for a while, but so didn't the U.S., and Germany, and Russia, and India, and China, and Pakistan, etc. Nuclear pursuit is almost always a country's dirty little secret at first.

I must say I'm with Moppie. Having a "you do as I tell you" attitude is not the way to go about it. Yes, Iran may have or may get nuclear weapons. But if they are never used, they are never used. They should be given the benefit of the doubt. If they use them, then rain hell down on them. But if they don't, don't start an action and make MORE enemies.

If the US goes into Iran without them doing anything, I'll strongly consider leaving the US.