Skip to main content

View Diary: WOW: Obama Admin. Rejects Visa Request for Israeli Knesset Member Due to Ties w/ Jewish Terror Group (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Big difference (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In Iraq, inspectors were saying that they doubted Bush's claims and wanted more inspections.  Here, there's a pretty clearly demonstrated nuclear program of come kind that can be weaponized.  Here, the inspectors seem to be providing the evidence that there's a program, rather than the  US administration.

    •  Any nuclear program *can be* weaponized. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheMomCat, lunachickie

      Here, there's no credible evidence at all from anyone that Iran is seeking to weaponize their nuclear program.

      We know Iran has a nuclear program.  That's not a secret.  To anyone.

      The IAEA is pissed that Iran won't sign on to the additional protocol, and pissed that Iran won't come clean about activities decades old.  

      They're not making a case that they have any evidence of a nuclear weapons program within the last decade, though.

      Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

      by JesseCW on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 02:42:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not strictly true (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        charliehall2, highacidity

        some designs are mroe difficult than others.  Also, we know that Iran was wokring on weaponizing in the past, even if they apparently stopped before 2007.  

        But broadly yes, there is no concrete evidence that they are weaponizing.  ON the other hand, if they were weaponizing, it isn't clear we would have any evidence until they test, frankly.  Leaves the world in somethign of a black box.  I'd hope that Iran would take a lesson from Hussein's experience and realize that if they aren't weaponizing they are far, far better off letting the inspectors run around where ever they want and trumpet to the world that nothing is going on.  Playing games that invite a miscalculation is foolhardy in the extreme, unless the Ayatollahs want to consolidate domesitc support by provoking a bombing attack from Israel, which would probably suit their domestic purposes quite nicely. I more than half way suspect that this is what is goign on here.

        A dangerous game all the way around

        •  Absolutely true. If you're enriching fuel, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheMomCat, charliehall2, lunachickie

          you can weaponize it if you put the effort in.

          If you've got nuclear power and you're not enriching fuel, you're a nation of idiots which has willingly sacrificed energy security.

          Iran would be governed by fools if they let American inspectors have free reign of their nation in order to compile target lists, the way that Saddam did.

          Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out.  He didn't stop them from performing inspections.  They did their work, we determined Saddam had no WMD, and then we attacked.

          There was no black box.  

          You're arguing Bush's big lie version of history.  I don't know why.

          Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

          by JesseCW on Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 04:27:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And there is no reason to enrich like this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:


          •  Ummm (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Iraq did not give access to weapons inspectors from 1998 to 2002, only for nuclear sites.  

            And, of course, perhaps you don't realize this, but

            1) the US doesn't need on the ground inspectors to figure out targest

            2) the IAEA and other inspectors aren't US officials.  

            Other than that, brilliant.

            •  Ok. So, you're sticking with that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Saddam didn't let the inspectors in.  We had no idea what he had.


              I didn't say IAEA inspectors were US officials.  Granted, I don't think your strawman was built intentionally in this case, you just had a hard time keeping up.

              What I said was that Americans on the inspection teams provided our government with target lists.

              1) the US doesn't need on the ground inspectors to figure out targest
              Have you ever actually looked at satellite images?  Eyes on the ground are a huge asset when it comes to deciding which civilian sites to destroy in the course of destroying all of a nations modern infrastructure, and they're a huge asset in determining where non-prohibited weapons are being stored, ect.

              Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

              by JesseCW on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 06:06:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  They just want war (0+ / 0-)

                that's all...

                It is time to #Occupy Media.

                by lunachickie on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 08:14:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  DIstort all you like (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Fact of the matter is that for many many years, Hussein was uncooperative with the inspections regime and deliberately choose a strategy of not allowing the international community know just where it stood vis a vis these waepons.  That strategy created enough uncertainty that Bush was easily able to exploit it.  Yes, the inspectors had a pretty good idea what Hussein didn't have though there were still significant uncertainties as towards others.  By the time Hussein realized what was coming and let the inspectors in, the momentum was already underway.

                As for Iran, sure they can play cat and mouse and the net result is that now momentum is again building for war precisely because of the uncooperativeness and lack of openness of Iran.  So, Iran wants to risk war, then so be it, but Khamanei has to know precisely that he is risking war by being cagey.  That's just how the world works.  If you create uncertainty in people's minds, then god knows what they'll do.  Not maybe rational, but utterly predictable.  

                If Iran is really only looking for peaceful civilian power, then they should absolutely open the doors wide and let all the inspectors see absolutely everything to prove their intentions are good.  Do that and all this "they're building a bomb!" hair on fire stuff will be unable to gain traction.  I'm afraid that this business of this paranoia that the IAEA is going to send in its black UN helicopters once th inspections are done is much lower risk than the very high risk Iran faces now from it's intentional creation of uncertainty.

                The only interpretation I see is that given civil unrest, Khamanei wants Israeli air strikes to shore up his own position.

                •  The only way for Iran to avoid risking war (0+ / 0-)

                  is for Iran to surrender completely and invite an occupation.

                  To argue that we savagely attacked and slaughtered the people of Iraq because "Saddam was coy with inspectors" is laughably detached from reality.

                  Bombing Iran is far more dangerous than Iran getting The Bomb.

                  by JesseCW on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 06:47:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I look at the civilian sat-int all the time (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                and I don't see why the US would need boots on the ground to destroy Iranian infrastructure.  I could probably figure that out with enough time and google earth.

                non-prohibited weapons? conventional weapons have nada to do with this discussion. There are a few kinds of targets IF you favor a military attack:

                Breeder reactors (preferably prior to completion)

                Uranium enrichment facilities (centrifuges and their electrical supplies)

                Weapon R&D facilities (if you believe that weaponization research is ongoing)

                Your belief that IAEA inspectors are somehow just targeting assistants for US airstrikes falls down when we know where the above locations are. What those inspectors could do is help difuse the situation by building confidence that Iran isn't diverting U235 for military use.

                The best way forward is for the international community to believe that Iran is in compliance. Their rhetoric (for domestic consumption?) doesn't help. Charliehall2 keeps harping on about this, although he's taking it to far by evidently believing everything Iranian leaders say. But when that rhetoric is mixed with obdurate refusal to allow inspections?

                Get a face-saving concession, maybe limit the countries who can supply inspectors, maybe linking US sanctions to inspections, whatever, and let them in.

                Unless what Iran is hoping for is a strike that plays up nationalist sentiment at a time when neighboring states are having massive pro-democracy protests.

                It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

                by Solarian on Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 10:24:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Saddam did kick the inspectors out (0+ / 0-)

            He let them return in later 2002 under mounting American military deployments. But yes, they were reporting zero results NLT Jan 2003.

        •  there is no credible evidence (0+ / 0-)

          regarding Iran's "weapons program". That's obvious to anyone paying attention.

          This is just like the run-up to Iraq and nobody's buying it this time.

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 08:16:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (68)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (25)
  • Elections (25)
  • Racism (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Texas (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site