[nullnor]

yahoo thru AP

more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride.

Uranium hexafluoride is spun in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which in turn can be used to generate power or make nuclear warheads

A senior diplomat familiar with the agency declined to say how much hexafluoride could be obtained from that amount of raw uranium, also known as yellowcake, beyond saying it was a "substantial amount."

it's time to bomb them

[Atrahasis]

You might be right, null. But I'm nagged by the question of, "What if what it takes to stop the cycle of bloodshed is for the US to give up some of it's global supremacy?"
In this case, by not standing in the way of an Islamic atomic bomb? Naive thought, perhaps. Is it worth considering if it could lead to peace through a kind of detente?

[Catfishkid]

But if you're wrong..........

[Atrahasis]

Originally posted by Catfishkid
But if you're wrong..........

Then I suppose the best of the worst-case scenarios would be another "Cold War" and the US would enter another space race or arms race to defeat whatever technology the Iranians will use for a delivery system.

I do realize that the terrorist who blow themselves up could obtain a weapon from Iran and detonate it in a suicide attack. I realize that's amongst the greaters fears of our leaders. However, Iran is a nation and not a terror group. And nations, like organizations, put survival and continuity above all else. Should a nuclear weapon find it's way from Iran into the hands of a non-state group, Iran must know that the consequence will be their own destruction, and so they must be as earnest as every other nationin acting to preventing it.

[fresno bob]

you count on/hope for "nations" to be rational players, Iran wants a bomb to deter Israel from nuking them, maybe russia too.

Maybe we just make a declaration to Iran, use your nuke against us, and right after Tehran, Mecca and Medina get it....I'll bet Israel does....

[Bob Kohm]

Originally posted by Atrahasis
Then I suppose the best of the worst-case scenarios would be another "Cold War" and the US would enter another space race or arms race to defeat whatever technology the Iranians will use for a delivery system.

Dangerously ethnocentric attitude here, Atra. YOu are assuming that the Iranians would be playing to the same motivations that we and the Russians played to-- economic hegemony. In fact, the Iranians are much more likely to view the spread of Shi'a Islam as their motivation, no? Now, do you really want to take something as fundamentally illogical as the spread of a religion and clothe it in rational motivations at the expense of possible nuclear attacks on the West? I sure don't.

I do realize that the terrorist who blow themselves up could obtain a weapon from Iran and detonate it in a suicide attack. I realize that's amongst the greaters fears of our leaders. However, Iran is a nation and not a terror group. And nations, like organizations, put survival and continuity above all else. Should a nuclear weapon find it's way from Iran into the hands of a non-state group, Iran must know that the consequence will be their own destruction, and so they must be as earnest as every other nationin acting to preventing it.

You're kidding here, right? Again, it all boils down to motivations. Can we envision an Iranian leader who determines that martydom is preferable to allowing the Great Satan to debase Islam? We've seen more than a few already. Can we envision an Iranian leader who determines that national martyrdom is preferable to allowing the Great Satan to debase Islam? We may have already seen a few, but they didn't have the means to pull it off. Do me a favor and don't propose gambling with the lives of my family to promote your regime of mutual weakness.

Never forget, Atrahasis, that we've seen--in the last 60 years-- a nation that literally burnt itself to the ground to defeat its enemy, and they did it for nothing more than nationalism, not "god".

[Atrahasis]

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
In fact, the Iranians are much more likely to view the spread of Shi'a Islam as their motivation, no? Now, do you really want to take something as fundamentally illogical as the spread of a religion and clothe it in rational motivations at the expense of possible nuclear attacks on the West? I sure don't.

That depends, what did we learn from the first cold war? Surely, we used similar rhetoric to describe the enemy yet the enemy was rational when push came to shove. Yes, Iran would like to export it's version of Islam, as we wish to export our versions of capitalism and democracy. I can see how you might argue that communists - because they don't generally believe in heaven - do care more about life on earth than religious fundamentalists (this is one reason I can't really buy-in to my own suggestion that this is a possible course of action).
However, Iran has taken serious steps towards a more modern society and towards a more democratic system - and it's been spearheaded by it's peoples, which is extremely promising.
Yes, the hardliners are still in control and that is reason to worry about them. We've weathered hardliners before. Close calls, but we came out of it.

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
You're kidding here, right? Again, it all boils down to motivations. Can we envision an Iranian leader who determines that martydom is preferable to allowing the Great Satan to debase Islam?
We've seen more than a few already. Can we envision an Iranian leader who determines that national martyrdom is preferable to allowing the Great Satan to debase Islam? We may have already seen a few, but they didn't have the means to pull it off.

One leader, yes. Clearly, Osama Bin Laden has nothing to lose and no person or people for him to answer to. Would a nation do it? I don't think so. When push comes to shove, I don't see how one Ayatollah in Iran could or would make this decision on behalf of all his countrymen. Acutally, on behlalf all of Islam, as this war would put an end to all religions, all cultures and all living things. When it comes down to it, a nation of people (not a cell of terrorists) will agree that it is preferable to live, which might mean cutting the head off the Ayatollah who decides this is "the end of days". I can separate leaders in Iran from Al Qaida for this reason.

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
Do me a favor and don't propose gambling with the lives of my family to promote your regime of mutual weakness.

You can say we're already gambling, Bob, with all our lives on the table. Surely you're not more than 5 or 6 people removed from someone who died in the attacks in 01. Facing total annhilation, the human mind, I believe, is moved moreso than facing long, prehaps enless wars of attrition where the casualties aren't immediate and all-inclusive in scope.

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
Never forget, Atrahasis, that we've seen--in the last 60 years-- a nation that literally burnt itself to the ground to defeat its enemy, and they did it for nothing more than nationalism, not "god".

Quite right. But again, Bob, wars of attrition are not equivalent to a war of absolute and irrevocable annhilation. Iran survived it's enemy. America survived it's enemy. When we talk about conventional wars, there is hope (though great costs paid in both instances). Survival of some sort is not truly in question until nukes are dropped.

[Atrahasis]

Originally posted by fresno bob
you count on/hope for "nations" to be rational players, Iran wants a bomb to deter Israel from nuking them, maybe russia too.

Maybe we just make a declaration to Iran, use your nuke against us, and right after Tehran, Mecca and Medina get it....I'll bet Israel does....

It's always preferable to deal with competitors from a position of strength or in the case of the US, dominance. That's been policy now since lessons learned in WW1 and WW2.

The problem that seems to be emerging now is that the other side also wants to show that it's very strong, despite being out-gunned. Consider, for a moment, what kind of steel it takes for a man to cut another man's head off while he's still alive and screaming. Or to drive a load of explosives into a crowd of unaware people. This has the elements of a self-feeding cycle.
Underlying all this posteuring of strength by both sides is, undoubtedly, fear. Fear is running the show. And anger, while effective in cutting through every other emotion or thought in it's path, endangers our ability to reason.

[Hornsby]

Sorry Atra, while I would like to subscribe to your optimistic point of view, Bob is 100% correct. You cannot negotiate with fanatics, and religious fanatics control the government in Iran and therefore control the weaponry...what the majority of the populace might think is irrelevant.

The closest analogy that I can come up with is one that i'm sure people will poke holes in, but here it is...

Japan in 1945 was at the end of it's rope economicily and materially, yet the cost of invading the mainland was estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 allied lives...and there was no negotiation, we were the devil to them and they were the devil to us...not unlike today and our relationship with Muslim fundamentalists. The decision was made to use the Atomic bomb and the results were so devastating that surrender came quickly with, ironicily, thousands of lives spared on both sides...

Now i'm not advocating bombing Tehran, but it may take a gesture of signifigant ferocity to make the Iranians actually negotiate...

[Atrahasis]

Originally posted by Hornsby
Sorry Atra, while I would like to subscribe to your optimistic point of view, Bob is 100% correct. You cannot negotiate with fanatics, and religious fanatics control the government in Iran and therefore control the weaponry...what the majority of the populace might think is irrelevant.

Is that so? The people of Iran managed to toss the Shah out of power. They set up an Islamic Republic, a complicated power system with both secular and religious power structures.
Yes, Iran is controlled by hardliners, religious fanatics as you said. But the people of Iran did elect reformists to their parliament. They wanted more freedom, they wanted change. It was ineffectual, sure. But it's a start. This, more than anything help me to the optimistic notion that what Iran is today doesn't have to be what it always will be.

Originally posted by Hornsby
Japan in 1945 was at the end of it's rope economicily and materially, yet the cost of invading the mainland was estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 allied lives...and there was no negotiation, we were the devil to them and they were the devil to us...not unlike today and our relationship with Muslim fundamentalists. The decision was made to use the Atomic bomb and the results were so devastating that surrender came quickly with, ironicily, thousands of lives spared on both sides...

Instead of going through why I don't think this is a good comparison I'm going to conceed that the WW2 examples are powerful, numerous and I do agree with many of the lessons learned . However, one lesson I don't draw from the great wars is that fighting is ALWAYS the answer. I think sometimes, we can do better than to call for "negotiations" with our enemy, after we've got a pistol to his head.

Originally posted by Hornsby
Now i'm not advocating bombing Tehran, but it may take a gesture of signifigant ferocity to make the Iranians actually negotiate...

That may be the way to go and it seems to be the path right now. But there's no denying that so far, our gestures have been met with even greater ferocity and each of their gestures met with the same. It's escalating. At what point do we decide that ferocity and zeal by both sides is amounting to nothing and try another approach?

[Bob Kohm]

Originally posted by Atrahasis
That depends, what did we learn from the first cold war? Surely, we used similar rhetoric to describe the enemy yet the enemy was rational when push came to shove. Yes, Iran would like to export it's version of Islam, as we wish to export our versions of capitalism and democracy. I can see how you might argue that communists - because they don't generally believe in heaven - do care more about life on earth than religious fundamentalists (this is one reason I can't really buy-in to my own suggestion that this is a possible course of action).
However, Iran has taken serious steps towards a more modern society and towards a more democratic system - and it's been spearheaded by it's peoples, which is extremely promising.
Yes, the hardliners are still in control and that is reason to worry about them. We've weathered hardliners before. Close calls, but we came out of it.

You've got to be kidding, Atra. You're going to confuse McCarthyistic rhetoric with demonstrable extremism? Did you miss the Iran-Iraq War? The Tehran Hostage Crisis? The backing of Hezbollah? Atra, I can understand the desire to try and build a case by saying "Yeah, but they said that the Communists were godless heathen", but it's not only a straw man but one with a pack of matches stuck to its foot. Iran is moving to a more modern society at the behest of its people, Atra? Really? Riddle me this, then-- do you understand the difference between the civil authority (under President Khatami) and the clerical powerbase (who control the Revolutionary Guard, who in turn control the nuclear program), under Ayatollah Khameini? I'm curious, Atra, where you think those two entitites intersect? Or are you following the line that when Iran fields nuclear weapons the people will be so empowered that they'll overthrow the theocracy of the Ayatollahs (who will control the weapons...)? We've weathered hardliners before? Sure, but which of those had nuclear weapons? Mao? a pragmatist who viewed the world in largely the same way we do. Stalin? Ditto. Kruschev? Andropov? Ditto. Kim? He's disturbing and still out there with weapons, but he isn't a religious fanatic so even though we don't always understand his thinking, he has to be considered an order of magnitude below Iran in terms of nuclear risk.

One leader, yes. Clearly, Osama Bin Laden has nothing to lose and no person or people for him to answer to. Would a nation do it? I don't think so. When push comes to shove, I don't see how one Ayatollah in Iran could or would make this decision on behalf of all his countrymen. Acutally, on behlalf all of Islam, as this war would put an end to all religions, all cultures and all living things. When it comes down to it, a nation of people (not a cell of terrorists) will agree that it is preferable to live, which might mean cutting the head off the Ayatollah who decides this is "the end of days". I can separate leaders in Iran from Al Qaida for this reason.

Interestingly, Osama bin Laden is not nor has he been to my knowledge a leader of the Iranian civil or theocratic state. I was thinking more along the lines of Khomeini and his successors. You don't understand how one Ayatollah can make a decision that would impact all of his countrymen? That's because, as has become apparent, you don't actually know much about how the Iranian polity is arranged, Atra. That's certainly no crime, but if you're going to talk about these things it might help to have a grasp of them. I think you also might be thinking a bit too grandiose if you think that Iran using a nuke against America would end religion, lol. You do understand, however, that it was largely Khomeini who dictated the tactics of the Iran-Iraq War, right, including the "mass martydoms", etc?

You can say we're already gambling, Bob, with all our lives on the table. Surely you're not more than 5 or 6 people removed from someone who died in the attacks in 01. Facing total annhilation, the human mind, I believe, is moved moreso than facing long, prehaps enless wars of attrition where the casualties aren't immediate and all-inclusive in scope.

Quite a bit closer than that, Atra. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about here, but I'll make a guess and you can reguide me if I miss. I believe that you're aying that nuclear war is too horrible for the Iranians to imagine. Oddly, I think that blowing myself up in a group of women and children is too horrible to imagine. I think that sending my son into a minefield in the hope he steps on one so that a soldier doesn't is too horrible to imagine. I think that literally begging the Israelis and Americans to destroy my nation for the vainglorious pursuit of nuclear weapons is too horrible to imagine. You have seen the Ikonos imagery of Bushehr, right?

Quite right. But again, Bob, wars of attrition are not equivalent to a war of absolute and irrevocable annhilation. Iran survived it's enemy. America survived it's enemy. When we talk about conventional wars, there is hope (though great costs paid in both instances). Survival of some sort is not truly in question until nukes are dropped.

I believe you've missed my point here, Atra. I wasn't referring to Iran. The country I was referring to that went to this incredible length merely for the sake of nationalism was the Soviet Union, who burned their nation before the advancing German Army. If the Soviets were willing to destroy their nation for pride, what lengths do you think an Ayatollah who has divorced his concerns from this world might go to for the glory of Allah? Remember, Atra, that Christendom literally came to the brink of destroying itself for the glory of God in the early Middle Ages.

A nuclear armed Iran is a new problem, one that there really is no parallel to in our history-- an enemy who can potentially cripple our society and whose motivations aren't relatable to our own.

[fucla]

Originally posted by Atrahasis
But I'm nagged by the question of, "What if what it takes to stop the cycle of bloodshed is for the US to give up some of it's global supremacy?"
In this case, by not standing in the way of an Islamic atomic bomb? Naive thought, perhaps. Is it worth considering if it could lead to peace through a kind of detente?

I dont think I have ever read anything that was more frightening than this on this message board.

The last thing I want is for some *************** still stuck in the the third century BC having nukes.

[Atrahasis]

So much for my attempts at shorter posts....

You're right that we should be afraid of enemies who's motivations we can't predict and don't match our own. But I happen to think we can count on survival as being one motivation that we each share. Why? It follows from my belief that it's necessary to draw lots of lines in order to recognize what differences exist - rather than listen to the voices who say, "they're all the same".
A line between the fanatics who control the clerical powerbase of Iran and the people of Iran, who despite the recent electoral defeat do want an republic system comprised of both religious and secular leaders. A line between the Islamist terror group Al Qaida and the nation called The Islamic Republic of Iran - an experiment in religious democracy that should interest the US given the history of the region. A line that separates the support of suicide solidiers and being a suicidal society and people.

Bob, I'm not clueless about Iran's government, how it's set up and who really has power. Had it not been for the long war with Iraq, I believe the political agenda of academics, also shared by Iran's young people, would be considerably further ahead.
BUt while the US continues a doctrine of coercive engagement and isolation, the EU is trying a constructive engagement. We shall see if we cancel one another's efforts out or if one proves more useful. Maybe our role is to be coercive right now.

You asked me if I think the Ayatollah is capable of ordering a nuclear strike? Yes, if it came to it I do think he's capable of it. But I think whether he would is absolutely contingent on actions by the US and Israel, not something out in the heavens that we don't control. Nations act and react to other nations.

Religious fanatics with weapons obviously terrify you more than any other group with arms. I admit, they freak me out and I can't relate to them. Back to the point I made in the first paragraph, I'm not going to let Iran or PNAC or you make me believe that they're a bunch of Jim Joneses and David Koreshes or people who worship death or evil - to believe that gives them more power over us then they deserve. They all love life as we do, regardless that they do not look all life with the same regard we do. Yeah, their dangerous. So are we.

[Atrahasis]

Originally posted by fucla
I dont think I have ever read anything that was more frightening than this on this message board.

When I consider what kinds of message boards you likely frequent fucla, my frightening post probably qualifies as pillow talk to most people.

I asked the question of everyone whether or not the theory of nations as rational actors means we don't need to bomb their nuclear power plant right now.
I'm inviting people to consider answers to why Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons, other than "because they are crazy fanatics and terrorists who want to destroy us and all we believe in".
I'm not basking in delusions of Iran being a democracy, they're a threat. I'm just noting that we share certain ideals with the people of Iran that aren't represented elsewhere in Muslim and Arab nations, so that's pretty special. Maybe it's important.

Originally posted by fucla
The last thing I want is for some neanderthalic towel heads still stuck in the the third century BC having nukes.

Typical. An uninteresting demonstration of contempt for and ignorance of people who're really different than you. Cept that you're not really that different - to me. Both hardline, reactionary conservatives just of a different cloth.

I should expect there are many people like you in Iran with respect to the sameness of their view of our country. If I do find an "Al-fuqla", can give him your email?

I won't lie. Iran's government scares the heck outta me in a way that ours doesn't, even with all our nukes and stuff. And I'm not for proliferation. Iran's got alot of oil. They're important and they're rich. But for that the academic liberals in Iran failed getting legislation passed so the hard-line conservatives in ultimate power are joined by yet more conservatives. As one yourself, fucla, you must understand instinctively why they must have lots and lots of weapons.

[Hornsby]

Originally posted by Atrahasis



Bob, I'm not clueless about Iran's government, how it's set up and who really has power. Had it not been for the long war with Iraq, I believe the political agenda of academics, also shared by Iran's young people, would be considerably further ahead.
BUt while the US continues a doctrine of coercive engagement and isolation, the EU is trying a constructive engagement. We shall see if we cancel one another's efforts out or if one proves more useful. Maybe our role is to be coercive right now.

You asked me if I think the Ayatollah is capable of ordering a nuclear strike? Yes, if it came to it I do think he's capable of it. But I think whether he would is absolutely contingent on actions by the US and Israel, not something out in the heavens that we don't control. Nations act and react to other nations.

They all love life as we do, regardless that they do not look all life with the same regard we do. Yeah, their dangerous. So are we.

OK, a couple of quick points here, you state that the EU is trying a constructive engagement...what does that consist of? Well for one, supplying them with Iranians with the knowledge and tools to build a nuclear reactor. I certainly don't consider that constructive in any way, shape, or form. It's called greed, pure and simple... And if the EU countries that are supplying the Iranians think that it'll make them safe in any way from terrorism, ask the two French journalists that are in the hands of Muslim extremeists right now.

You think that the Ayatollah is going to base his decision on weather to use a nuke on what we do? It might factor in a small part of his decision, but if some voice in his head decides that's the day that he and his followers become mayrtrs, are there enough safeguards in the system to stop him? I sincerely doubt it.

And no, I don't believe that they do regard life in the same vein as we do...I can't begin to understand a culture/religion that does to it's people what Bob has already stated. For us in the west to THINK that we understand the motivations of a Muslim fundy is folly at best and suicidal at worst.

[Bob Kohm]

You claim to understand the Iranian polity, Atra, but obviously you do not if you want to "draw more than one line" between the clerical, civil, and popular powerbases. You can draw all of the lines you like, Atra, and still be missing the point. I'm not saying that all Iranians are the same, as you so conveniently surmise. I'm saying that all of these alleged fissures mean nothing, absolutely nothing, when only one sector controls the nuclear apparatus, and that sector happens to be the one prone to fits of suicidal hatred. There's a difference between the policies of Khatami and Khameini? Yeah, no kidding. Yet which one is pushing forward at Bushehr? Which one is funding terrorists? Which one controls the Revolutionary Guard formations? Note the repeated use of the word one.

Let me ask you a question, Atra-- you claim that the one motivation we can count on is survival. Let me pose a set of scenarios (some for the second time), and you tell me where that particular motivation resides.

A man walks into a cafe with a bomb strapped to his chest, intent on setting it off.

A clerical military force calls up children as mineclearers. Their parents respond not by hiding them but by bringing them forward.

A nation whose conventional forces not only guarantee its survival but also guarantee itself status as a regional power. They pursue the one policy course that could bring them into full conflict with the two nations who could overcome their cnventional forces and destroy their nation. They do this for what reason?

A nation intentionally stages a deadly stampede at Islam's holiest site, defiling it in the eyes of their co-religionists and alienating themselves during a time of war from their most critical allies.

I would appreciate it, Atra, if you could show me the motivation towards personal or national survival in each of those.

If it wasn't for the Iraqi war the positions of the young people and acadmics would be further advanced? No doubt. However, there was an Iraqi war, so I'm not seeing your real world point.

The EU method of engagement with Iran is a better policy than "coercive engagement". No doubt, as it has allowed the Iranians to move forward with their nuclear weapons program. Or, I wonder, do you believe the EU line that it is a peacful nuclear power program, conducted in a nation with huge petroleum reserves? They don't build a hell of a lot of nuclear reactors in West Virginia, either, Atra-- something to do with the abundance of fossil fuel there, I believe.

The actions of an Ayatollah are totally dependent on the actions of the US & Israel? Interesting theory. Let's totally suspend reality and say that you're right. Where does perception come into your equation, Atra? Khameini has continued Khomeini's lovely line of reasoning that holds us as The Great Satan, Russia as The Lesser Satan, and Israel as The Great Enemy. So tell me again, Atra-- were does perception come in? We pressure OPEC to lower oil prices. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, Venezuelans, etc view it as an annoying business problem to deal with. The Ayatollah views it as the Great Satan seeking to debase and undermine the chosen of Allah, and now he has the tool to redress it.

Your omnibenevolent view on mankind is lovely and admirable. It is also demonstrably wrong.

[Atrahasis]

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
I'm saying that all of these alleged fissures mean nothing, absolutely nothing, when only one sector controls the nuclear apparatus, and that sector happens to be the one prone to fits of suicidal hatred.

What does "prone to fits of suicidal nature" mean, Bob? My premise is only that Iran and all it's peoples want to continue living in this world. Yeah, if they believe they have to die they're certainly prepared to do it and take as many enemies with them they can. But you seem to be taking this a step further: you seem to think they have a death wish and I don't agree with your opinion. Perhaps you're too terrified of religious fanaticism to want see them as a nation, but they are nation.

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
Let me ask you a question, Atra-- you claim that the one motivation we can count on is survival. Let me pose a set of scenarios (some for the second time), and you tell me where that particular motivation resides.

No. That's about as fair as me listing off "scenarios" involving the US killing innocents, the deception of it's peoples and other wrong-doing and demanding that you tell me how this fits our nation's self-conception that we are a freedom-preserving, peace-loving country. I don't see how this is constructive to this discussion. The difference between fighting a conventional war and a nuclear one is not lost on the Ayatollah or any of Iran's leaders. These are not suicide bombers, they are leaders of a nation and an Islamic movement they wish too perpetuate, not burn out in blaze of glory.

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
If it wasn't for the Iraqi war the positions of the young people and acadmics would be further advanced? No doubt. However, there was an Iraqi war, so I'm not seeing your real world point.

I think you do but you're under no obligation to help me argue my case
You know as well as I that Iranians desire political, economic and social reform and that they believe that this is 100% necessary for Iran to move forward and be a power. You also know that more than half of Iran is age 25 or younger. The seed of democracy isn't on some warship on it's way from the US to Iran, it has already sprouted there and grown just a bit. There's been setbacks (some as a result of the war, conflict with Israel and US) and their going to need time. They're also going to need stability in their region for it to be clear that the threats to their country don't necessitate keeping the hardliners in power. Can you not acknowledge that their experiment with a religious republic has some significance to us?

Originally posted by Bob Kohm
The EU method of engagement with Iran is a better policy than "coercive engagement". No doubt, as it has allowed the Iranians to move forward with their nuclear weapons program.

Your omnibenevolent view on mankind is lovely and admirable. It is also demonstrably wrong.

"Omnibenevolent view", haw! I supported the war in Iraq, but you make me sound like a pacifist. Where senorsheep to nod his agreement with you?
Tell me, what have I written here that's so incredibly different from the positions of John Kerry and John Edwards that's got you so shocked and dismayed?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5861550

From MSNBC newsA John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making

Are you and Hornsby as critical of their POV as you are with mine?

[Atrahasis]

Originally posted by Hornsby
OK, a couple of quick points here, you state that the EU is trying a constructive engagement...what does that consist of? Well for one, supplying them with Iranians with the knowledge and tools to build a nuclear reactor. I certainly don't consider that constructive in any way, shape, or form. It's called greed, pure and simple...

I agree with you about greed, but the finger of scorn and suspicion can be pointed at many more than just the EU. Heck, we supplied Iran with weapons and intelligence in the 1980s. The EU wants to trade with Iran but they are prepared to isolate Iran if they won't comply with atomic energy inspection programs.
What the EU (and Kerry/Edwards) want to do is to get Iran's commitment to nuclear transparency which would substantiate Iran's claim to have no nuclear weapon ambitions.

Originally posted by Hornsby
And if the EU countries that are supplying the Iranians think that it'll make them safe in any way from terrorism, ask the two French journalists that are in the hands of Muslim extremeists right now.

I suppose you'd have me believe that all Muslim extremists in Iraq and elsewhere are controlled by Tehran's wishes. I don't believe it and as I've written, I don't think it's constructive to lump everyone together.

Originally posted by Hornsby
[b]You think that the Ayatollah is going to base his decision on weather to use a nuke on what we do? It might factor in a small part of his decision, but if some voice in his head decides that's the day that he and his followers become mayrtrs, are there enough safeguards in the system to stop him? I sincerely doubt it.

"That might factor in a small part". The actions of Israel and the US are small foreign policy matters for Iran? I don't think you believe that but like Bob, I think you look at religious fanatics with weapons differently than you would any other ideologues who might have them.

Originally posted by Hornsby
And no, I don't believe that they do regard life in the same vein as we do...I can't begin to understand a culture/religion that does to it's people what Bob has already stated.

We agree on that, Horns. I don't think they regard life in the same vein at all.

[Bob Kohm]

Originally posted by Atrahasis
What does "prone to fits of suicidal nature" mean, Bob? My premise is only that Iran and all it's peoples want to continue living in this world. Yeah, if they believe they have to die they're certainly prepared to do it and take as many enemies with them they can. But you seem to be taking this a step further: you seem to think they have a death wish and I don't agree with your opinion. Perhaps you're too terrified of religious fanaticism to want see them as a nation, but they are nation.

If you're going to quote, please do so accurately-- the phrase was "prone to fits of suicidal hatred". Your lack of understanding of the dual nature of Iran is pretty grave, Atra. Yes, there is an Iranian nation. Did you miss the events of a few years back when the government of that nation under Rafsanjani tried to wrest control away from the clerical administration of Iran under Khameini? The clerical leadership of Iran has proven time and again that their desire to injure their enemies is stronger than their interest in promoting the well being of Iran. The clerical structure, not the governmental structure, controls Bushehr and their advanced weaponry programs-- they all fall under the revolutionary guard, not the armed forces. Why is this so hard to understand? If it helps you, think of the division (and this is by no means a perfect analogy) as the difference between the Wehrmacht and the SS. The SS was responsible for and carried out the Holocaust under the rubric of Hitler's hatred of the Jews. The Wehrmacht posecuted the war under the rubric of civil authority. Surely you can recognize a difference?

No. That's about as fair as me listing off "scenarios" involving the US killing innocents, the deception of it's peoples and other wrong-doing and demanding that you tell me how this fits our nation's self-conception that we are a freedom-preserving, peace-loving country.

No, not at all. Everything I listed are real world, historical scenarios demonstrating that you are, in fact, wrong when you say that Iran's and by extension many of its people's primary motivation is survival. Iran is a major sponsor of suicide bombings. Iran did use children--volunteered by their parents-- as minesweepers. Iran did stage the disatrous Mecca stampede. Iran is the de facto regional power in the Persina Gulf, yet they are pursuing this nuclear weapons policy that must invite an overpowering response from Israel and the United States. Your thesis is that their first priority is self preservation. I am confronting you with scenarios that give lie to that. Please, again, point out where I am wrong in these examples? These aren't concepts like "freedom-preserving" or "peace-loving", these are real world (and I can already see your problem with that...) examples.

I don't see how this is constructive to this discussion. The difference between fighting a conventional war and a nuclear one is not lost on the Ayatollah or any of Iran's leaders. These are not suicide bombers, they are leaders of a nation and an Islamic movement they wish too perpetuate, not burn out in blaze of glory.

Really? I certainly can't see how they are constructive to your argument, of course, but to the discussion? Indefensible side step, Atra. I've done you the courtesey of directly addressing your points, return the favor. They don't wish to burn out Shi'a in a blaze of glory? Really? According to the Q'ran, thta is the only acceptable ending to the story once the Dar al Islam has reached its maximum potential, isn't it? Remember, to a fundamental Shi'a there is no penalty in death, only glory.

I think you do but you're under no obligation to help me argue my case
You know as well as I that Iranians desire political, economic and social reform and that they believe that this is 100% necessary for Iran to move forward and be a power.

You know this, do you? IRNA contracting out with Zogby for public polls these days, lol? Which people want this, Atra, the ones living their lives out or the ones with the nuclear weapons who don't value their lives at all? Motivations, Atra.

You also know that more than half of Iran is age 25 or younger. The seed of democracy isn't on some warship on it's way from the US to Iran, it has already sprouted there and grown just a bit. There's been setbacks (some as a result of the war, conflict with Israel and US) and their going to need time. They're also going to need stability in their region for it to be clear that the threats to their country don't necessitate keeping the hardliners in power. Can you not acknowledge that their experiment with a religious republic has some significance to us?

Demographics, Atra? again, I ask-- what value do the theological zealots who have the power in Iran have for demographics or the lives behind them? They've more than adequately demonstrated their willingness--desire?-- to sacrifice those lives for actions which ultimately hurt the nation of Iran. Setbacks? Yes, there have been setbacks, lol-- generated from within by the Revolutionary Guard.

"Omnibenevolent view", haw! I supported the war in Iraq, but you make me sound like a pacifist. Where senorsheep to nod his agreement with you?

You'll excuse my confusion; when someone states that it is for the best to give nuclear weapons to an extremist state in the interest of weakening their own and creating instability because, hey, they're nice guys too, I go to omnibenevolence.

Tell me, what have I written here that's so incredibly different from the positions of John Kerry and John Edwards that's got you so shocked and dismayed?

One of my points of disagreement with Kerry. Of course, I also suspect that position changes the day he gets into office.

[senorsheep]

Originally posted by Atrahasis
"Omnibenevolent view", haw! I supported the war in Iraq, but you make me sound like a pacifist. Where senorsheep to nod his agreement with you?

: puff of smoke and smell of brimstone :

You summoned me?

Atra, you "brotherhood of man" types are always good to have around in these discussions. You remind us grim realists that we must occasionally crawl out of the muck of "what is" and take a fresh look at "what could be" every now and then.

A nuclear Iran in 2004 is not one of those occasions. I'm not opposed to the notion of extending them a concession from time to time in hopes of drawing them in to the world community. But nuclear capability is not the appropriate olive branch to offer right now. Not given their track record of irresponsible behavior in recent decades. Not given the mindset of the faction that would have their finger on the button. And not given the consequences if your good intentions prove to be misgiven.