• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Israel has "eight days" to launch a military strike against Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility and stop Tehran from acquiring a functioning atomic plant, a former US envoy to the UN has said.


Iran is to bring online its first nuclear power reactor, built with Russia's help, on August 21, when a shipment of nuclear fuel will be loaded into the plant's core.

You know, there is some pretty ironic history behind this plant. It was begun in the 1970's by the Shah of Iran, with the blessing of the western world. After the downfall of the Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini issued an edict that no nuclear plants were to be built, so it sat idle until after Khomeini died. In 1995, work was resumed on the plant, with the help of Russia.

I am torn on this issue, but I believe that nuclear power is the right of all nations. The problem with nuclear power, though, is the waste, which can be turned into material for a nuclear weapon. Once this power plant goes online, Iran can have a nuclear weapon in approximately 6 years, if it wants one.

It is too late now to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, as that will spread radiation, not only among the civilian population of Iran, but also beyond it's borders. Like it or not, the genie is now out of the bottle, and we must deal with it. Pressure must be kept up on Iran, and the strategy changed from stopping them from acquiring nuclear technology to forcing them to give up its nuclear waste, offering them compensation for it.

I believe that the window for stopping Iran from having nuclear power has been closed, and we will, as the old Chinese proverb says, be living in interesting times. We must now adapt our strategy to account for this development. And make no mistake - We must let Iran know that ANY use of weapons of mass destruction will result in the complete annihilation of their nation.

Article is here.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
214
Reaction score
56
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is sad, but I dont think Israel is going to arklight the Iranian nuclear site into the ground.

The liberals within Israel have been able to render the nation impotent from threats within and without and, with Netanyahu attempting to curry favor with an American President (who borders on the anti-Semitic) I would find it hard for Israel to strike out unilaterally. Anti-Semitism is at an all time high in the world: especially in America where it is now de riguer to use the word "Zionist" when referring to Jews or the Jewish state. Leftists at universities, blogs, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other sites use the word interchangeably as a pejorative and seek, eventually, the fall of the Jewish state. And with Obama's pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab stance, Israel is, as Golda Meir said years ago, "... very much alone."

As Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem proclaimed in 1943: "We seek the ultimate destruction of every Jew in the world, first in Europe and then in the Middle East where she is attempting to build a homeland."

That same year, Hitler raised two Muslim SS Divisions in Jugoslavia that served alongside the Gebirgscorps fighting Tito's partisans. The Muslim Nazi's led a swath of rape, murder, pillage and destruction so wide, so vast and so vile through the deep hills of the wartorn countries that by 1945, the Nazi high command chose to disband the Muslim killers when word of their deeds had gotten out. One Muslim SS soldier stated: "our hope was to fight our way to Palestine and then kill every Jew there."

This attitude: anti-Semitism, is still alive and well in the Middle East and in America, where left-wing students now march side by side (stosstruppen style) with anti-Semitic Muslim Student organizations burning Israeli flags, some carrying the dark, red and black blutfahne of the Nazi party ... mirroring men of 13.Handschar SS division whose hope was the destruction of international Jewry.

May G-d protect Israel.
 
Last edited:

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Russian's have made there agenda clear. That nation is run by snakes.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,314
Reaction score
36,360
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is sad, but I dont think Israel is going to arklight the Iranian nuclear site into the ground.

The liberals within Israel have been able to render the nation impotent from threats within and without and, with Netanyahu attempting to curry favor with an American President (who borders on the anti-Semitic) I would find it hard for Israel to strike out unilaterally. Anti-Semitism is at an all time high in the world: especially in America where it is now de riguer to use the word "Zionist" when referring to Jews or the Jewish state. Leftists at universities, blogs, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other sites use the word interchangeably as a pejorative and seek, eventually, the fall of the Jewish state. And with Obama's pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab stance, Israel is, as Golda Meir said years ago, "... very much alone."

May G-d protect Israel.

sisko-facepalm.jpg


It's a conspiracy!!!


In all seriousness though I must agree with Dan, they probably already have them. Which begs the question why we went into Iraq when they weren't even close to getting them, but we've left North Korea and Iran to their own devices.

Besides, bombing doesn't garuntee the destruction of a nuclear warhead or technology. You'd have to invade, which I'm afraid to say, would be one of the most disastrous occupations/invasions in history.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is sad, but I dont think Israel is going to arklight the Iranian nuclear site into the ground.

The liberals within Israel have been able to render the nation impotent from threats within and without and, with Netanyahu attempting to curry favor with an American President (who borders on the anti-Semitic) I would find it hard for Israel to strike out unilaterally. Anti-Semitism is at an all time high in the world: especially in America where it is now de riguer to use the word "Zionist" when referring to Jews or the Jewish state. Leftists at universities, blogs, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other sites use the word interchangeably as a pejorative and seek, eventually, the fall of the Jewish state. And with Obama's pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab stance, Israel is, as Golda Meir said years ago, "... very much alone."

As Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem proclaimed in 1943: "We seek the ultimate destruction of every Jew in the world, first in Europe and then in the Middle East where she is attempting to build a homeland."

That same year, Hitler raised two Muslim SS Divisions in Jugoslavia that served alongside the Gebirgscorps fighting Tito's partisans. The Muslim Nazi's led a swath of rape, murder, pillage and destruction so wide, so vast and so vile through the deep hills of the wartorn countries that by 1945, the Nazi high command chose to disband the Muslim killers when word of their deeds had gotten out. One Muslim SS soldier stated: "our hope was to fight our way to Palestine and then kill every Jew there."

This attitude: anti-Semitism, is still alive and well in the Middle East and in America, where left-wing students now march side by side (stosstruppen style) with anti-Semitic Muslim Student organizations burning Israeli flags, some carrying the dark, red and black blutfahne of the Nazi party ... mirroring men of 13.Handschar SS division whose hope was the destruction of international Jewry.

May G-d protect Israel.

I don't know what you have been smoking, but most Jews in the United States, especially in the Northeast, happen to be Liberal.

This is nothing about Liberal or Conservative, and who is the best friend of Israel. It is about the situation in Iran, and what we are going to do about it. Attempting to poison the atmosphere for political purposes does not help.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
214
Reaction score
56
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
My stated opinion about Iran was made objectively clear for you but you have chosen to ignore it.

Iran is emboldened by left-wing anti-Semitism in America and Israel in same fashion North Vietnamese Communists were emboldened by pro-Marxist student demonstrators during the Vietnam War (1955-75). Unfortunately, after the Fall of Saigon in 1975 (when left-wing, pro-Communist students went back to their university classrooms), the Communist victors in Vietnam exterminated 3,500,000 South Vietnamese, Catholics, Christians, and cultural minorities - primarily the Montagnard tribes who had supported the French, South Viets and the U.S. Most were simply executed with a bullet to the back of the head and then dumped in mass graves --- which are still extant across today's Vietnam. Later extermination and re-education camps were built where the killing continued. The liberal students who had demonstrated against the war: *silence*.

Iran has threatened to exterminate Israel in the same manner that the North Vietnamese Communists exterminated the South. Israel's only choice: an *arklight* strike on Iran. But such a strike will only have success unless you can also hit the leadership, communications and religious (terrorist) centers of the Iranian state and hobble it for at least 20 years. Iran has drawn many plans from the Vietnam War. Anti-Semitism, at an all time high in America is leading to a resurgent, terror-sponsoring Iran ... and we have done nothing to stop the stosstruppen in Tehran from building a nuclear device. Absolutely nothing.

My point is that Iran's emboldened stature is made worse by an anti-Semitic State Department and pro-pan-Arab President who remains *silent* while Iran threatens nuclear holocaust on the Jewish state. Our pan-Arab President has chosen instead ... to back an anti-Semitic, homophobic "Mosque" at Ground Zero.

Now thats diplomacy Ribbentrop would have been proud of.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't agree with Mr. Bolton's dire assessment for two reasons:

1) Russia plans to take precautions that will limit the risk of Iran's using the fuel to pursue illicit nuclear activities. Haaretz reported, "But Western fears that the Bushehr project could help Iran develop a nuclear weapon were lessened when Moscow reached an agreement with Tehran obliging it to return spent fuel to Russia. Weapons-grade plutonium can be derived from spent fuel rods." Russia would know whether the rods have been returned or otherwise tampered with and would be in a position to cease any additional fuel shipments.

2) If Israel believes it is confronted with an existential threat, it can and would act to try to neutralize that threat and it would not be constrained by artificial timelines.

My guess is that the critical threshold for a strike-no strike decision probably lies a year or two in the future. At the same time, alternative methods will need to be examined given the risks and impact of possible military action, so military action is not assured.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
124
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ohhh wow.... that sounds like something that would not go off to well in the end..
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
18,653
Reaction score
7,664
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't agree with Mr. Bolton's dire assessment for two reasons:

1) Russia plans to take precautions that will limit the risk of Iran's using the fuel to pursue illicit nuclear activities. Haaretz reported, "But Western fears that the Bushehr project could help Iran develop a nuclear weapon were lessened when Moscow reached an agreement with Tehran obliging it to return spent fuel to Russia. Weapons-grade plutonium can be derived from spent fuel rods. [/i] Russia would know whether the rods have been returned or otherwise tampered with and would be in a position to cease any additional fuel shipments.
Assuming 200 fuel rods in a typical reactor, and roughly ~50 needed to produce sufficient quantities of fuel for a weapon, doesn't that give them more than enough opportunity to secure the needed material prior to Russia "ceasing additional shipments"?
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Assuming 200 fuel rods in a typical reactor, and roughly ~50 needed to produce sufficient quantities of fuel for a weapon, doesn't that give them more than enough opportunity to secure the needed material prior to Russia "ceasing additional shipments"?

The U.S has also acknowledged that the planned fuel supply mechanism does not pose a proliferation risk. From the Associated Press:

The terms of the deal commit the Iranians to allow the Russians to retrieve all used reactor fuel for reprocessing. Spent fuel contains plutonium, which can be used to make atomic weapons. Additionally, Iran has said that International Atomic Energy Agency experts will be able to verify that none of the fresh fuel or waste is diverted...

In Washington, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Bushehr "does not represent a proliferation risk. ... However, Bushehr underscores that Iran does not need its own indigenous enrichment capability. The fact that Russia is providing fuel is the very model the international community has offered Iran."


In any case, I suspect that Mr. Bolton may be largely on his own in citing August 21 as the deadline by which Israel or some other country must attack Iran's nuclear facilities. My guess is that both the U.S. and Israel believe additional time is available before a military option becomes non-viable. Hence, the additional time can be used for a combination of diplomacy, planning a viable military strategy, assessing various alternatives to military action (deterrence, containment, some combination, among others), etc.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
214
Reaction score
56
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The problem with an Israeli strike is:

(a.) Mr. Obama's current anti-Israel stance. Israel could loose loan guarantees from a White House that is pro-Arab (and therefore anti-Semitic).

(b.) Another, endless United Nations "investigation" that will find Israel "guilty of war crimes".

Mr. Bolton was America's last great bullwark against pan-Arab/Islamofascism. Now we are stuck with an anti-Semitic White House and an anti-Semitic liberal mainstream press who will find Israel guilty, regardless.
 

ScottD

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
977
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

(a.) Mr. Obama's current anti-Israel stance. Israel could loose loan guarantees from a White House that is pro-Arab (and therefore anti-Semitic).

First off, those are several stretches. Pro-Arab is anti-Semitic? That's a big one.

Second, when it comes to US relations with Israel, I like to use this analogy:

The Republicans are Israel's cheap whore, the Democrats are Israel's cheap whore that talks dirty.

Israel will get unquestioned support from the Democrats just as much as they would from Republicans.
 
Last edited:

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I believe that the window for stopping Iran from having nuclear power has been closed, and we will, as the old Chinese proverb says, be living in interesting times. We must now adapt our strategy to account for this development. And make no mistake - We must let Iran know that ANY use of weapons of mass destruction will result in the complete annihilation of their nation.

Article is here.

First, contrary to what we may believe, even if Iran produces a lot of oil/gas, it needs nuclear energy (or some other source of energy): if it relied only on oil to produce electricity, it would have to import oil!!!

Then, I don't think there is much to be feared: in spite of all the demonization we read in our medias, Iranians are not stupid and know very well that if they ever use a nuclear bomb, they'll be annihilated in a matter of seconds. We have to remember that "crazy" people such as Mao or Stalin also had nukes, yet they never used them.

One last thing we have to remember is that nothing proves that Iran actually plans to build bombs: all they do is legal, they can enrich their uranium up to 20% (needed for medical researches) and they can get all the nuclear plants they want to, it's the right of every nation.

If we had intelligent diplomats, maybe we could have made a win-win deal, where Iran does not need to import oil without building nuclear plants (even if it is their right to do so): the nations who oppose the Iranian nuclear programme could have fund the construction of a giant solar/wind energy station with an energy production that would be similar to one or two nuclear plants, and they could have provided all the uranium (enriched to 20%) needed to make medical researches.
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem with an Israeli strike is:

(a.) Mr. Obama's current anti-Israel stance. Israel could loose loan guarantees from a White House that is pro-Arab (and therefore anti-Semitic).

(b.) Another, endless United Nations "investigation" that will find Israel "guilty of war crimes".

Mr. Bolton was America's last great bullwark against pan-Arab/Islamofascism. Now we are stuck with an anti-Semitic White House and an anti-Semitic liberal mainstream press who will find Israel guilty, regardless.

and

(c.) It would be totally hypocritical to attack someone because he could be planning to get illegal weapons, when yourself have been in possession of the same illegal weapons for decades
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
and

(c.) It would be totally hypocritical to attack someone because he could be planning to get illegal weapons, when yourself have been in possession of the same illegal weapons for decades

Not at all. Since this "someone" is opposing your existence on every front, it's better not to take the chance and see if a mushroom would eradicate you or not.
 
Last edited:

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Not at all. Since this "someone" is opposing your existence on every front, it's better not to take the chance and see if a mushroom would eradicate you or not.

Still a double standard
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Still a double standard

Then you simply don't understand the meaning of a double standard.
In the case when there was no hostility coming from Iran, it would have been a double standard, but that is not the case, and it cannot be described as such.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It is too late now to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, as that will spread radiation, not only among the civilian population of Iran, but also beyond it's borders. Like it or not, the genie is now out of the bottle, and we must deal with it. Pressure must be kept up on Iran, and the strategy changed from stopping them from acquiring nuclear technology to forcing them to give up its nuclear waste, offering them compensation for it.

I believe that the window for stopping Iran from having nuclear power has been closed, and we will, as the old Chinese proverb says, be living in interesting times. We must now adapt our strategy to account for this development. And make no mistake - We must let Iran know that ANY use of weapons of mass destruction will result in the complete annihilation of their nation.

Article is here.

I could very easily be wrong, but I don't think that a bombing run at this current stage would spread radiation at all.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I could very easily be wrong, but I don't think that a bombing run at this current stage would spread radiation at all.

Now that you mention it, I have not heard about such thing as well.
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can understand Reps going along with what their favorite neocon hawk, Bolton says because they'll believe anything that helps their party, but discerning Libs demand more proof before they take any kind of action.

ricksfolly
 

bub

R.I.P. Léo
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
9,649
Reaction score
2,173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Then you simply don't understand the meaning of a double standard.
In the case when there was no hostility coming from Iran, it would have been a double standard, but that is not the case, and it cannot be described as such.

It's not relevant, Israel does not want other nations to get nuclear weapons while it possesses some of them.

Nuclear weapons are a threat to everyone, not only to Israel.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The problem with an Israeli strike is:

(a.) Mr. Obama's current anti-Israel stance. Israel could loose loan guarantees from a White House that is pro-Arab (and therefore anti-Semitic).

(b.) Another, endless United Nations "investigation" that will find Israel "guilty of war crimes".

Mr. Bolton was America's last great bullwark against pan-Arab/Islamofascism. Now we are stuck with an anti-Semitic White House and an anti-Semitic liberal mainstream press who will find Israel guilty, regardless.
Bolton is a war-monger and has never seen a war he didn't like.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I don't agree with Mr. Bolton's dire assessment for two reasons:

1) Russia plans to take precautions that will limit the risk of Iran's using the fuel to pursue illicit nuclear activities. Haaretz reported, "But Western fears that the Bushehr project could help Iran develop a nuclear weapon were lessened when Moscow reached an agreement with Tehran obliging it to return spent fuel to Russia. Weapons-grade plutonium can be derived from spent fuel rods." Russia would know whether the rods have been returned or otherwise tampered with and would be in a position to cease any additional fuel shipments.

2) If Israel believes it is confronted with an existential threat, it can and would act to try to neutralize that threat and it would not be constrained by artificial timelines.

My guess is that the critical threshold for a strike-no strike decision probably lies a year or two in the future. At the same time, alternative methods will need to be examined given the risks and impact of possible military action, so military action is not assured.

Of course Obama's state department is going to say that there isn't any danger. They've made zero effort to prevent Iran from pressing forward with their nuke program and admitting that there's a danger would be admitting what most of us already know: they failed.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Bolton is a war-monger and has never seen a war he didn't like.

Actually, he's one of the most common sense diplomatic figures in the history of this country. He did an awesome job fighting off the UN's efforts to pass an international treaty banning private firearm ownership.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Of course Obama's state department is going to say that there isn't any danger. They've made zero effort to prevent Iran from pressing forward with their nuke program and admitting that there's a danger would be admitting what most of us already know: they failed.

IMO, the sanctions regime that has been pursued is largely ineffectual. Robust sanctions that would have dealt with Iran's ability to export crude oil/buy refined products on the world market would have a better chance at success. But to achieve such sanctions, the U.S. almost certainly would need to provide some quid pro quo to Russia and China given that there are some divergences between China's, Russia's, and the United States' interests.

In any case, there is nothing magical about the 8/21 date. If Israel believes it is confronted with an existential threat, it will respond appropriately to try to address that threat. Dates will be irrelevant. But, I suspect, neither Israel nor the U.S. believes that the situation has reached that critical point.
 
Top Bottom