• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

World powers meet on Iran nuclear program

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,362
Reaction score
2,438
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
World powers meet on Iran nuclear program


"LONDON, England (CNN) -- Six world powers are meeting in London to discuss Iran's resumption of its nuclear research program, as Tehran threatened to force oil prices higher if U.N. sanctions are imposed against it.

"Iran's foreign ministry spokesman said that even if the IAEA holds an emergency meeting to discuss referring Tehran to the Security Council, Iran will not change its stance."
" We are not afraid at all if referred to the Security Council."

"Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force," ElBaradei told Newsweek. "We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them.

"Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it."

"Tehran suggested Sunday that if that happens, it may respond by manipulating world oil prices."





Deja Vu anyone?
I wonder if China,Russia, and France are going to try to squeeze money out of this country as well. Russia even offered to enrich the Uranium for them but of course they said no because they are not really interested in that.
 
I believe they are going about this the wrong way. It is arrogance to think you can keep nations from developing various kinds of technology. If they were truly concerned about nuclear proliferation. All nations would completely destroy their nuclear arsenals.

However this will not happen. Nations that currently have nuclear weapons want to keep them. Nobody wants to be at a disadvantage.

On a side note, did anyone see ABC news in Iran? That was crazy. Iranian kids playing paintball and riding karts. It was a beautiful thing. An Iranian women said:

"They can't make me do anything … things they want and I don't want," said one young female racecar driver, speaking in halting English. "They don't have the power. I am the power. I have the will. I will do anything myself want. I don't let anybody decide about me."


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1467301
 
GarzaUK said:
How's that going by the way? lol lol. :roll:
Click to expand...
No attacks since September of 2001. You tell me.
 
KCConservative said:
No attacks since September of 2001. You tell me.
Click to expand...

London, Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bali (twice). Oh aye, it's coming along nicely.
 
GarzaUK said:
London, Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bali (twice). Oh aye, it's coming along nicely.
Click to expand...

Shhh...He was speaking of the USA... Rest of the world doesn't count :roll:
 
GarzaUK said:
London, Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bali (twice). Oh aye, it's coming along nicely.
Click to expand...
Yes, so how would cutting and running be?
 
KCConservative said:
No attacks since September of 2001. You tell me.
Click to expand...

There were no foreign terror attacks on U.S. soil from 1993 to 2001. So what’s your point?

I guess by your logic, Canada must be doing a hell of a job in the war on terror as they culturally identical to the United States, yet they have never been attacked.

If the terrorists "hate our freedom", then Canada ought to be high on their lists of targets.
 
1993? You mean since the first WTC attack? Is there a question here? Are you upset that we have been kept safe for nearly five years? I don't get it. What's your point? Your Bush hate is backfiring if you are actually upset with our safety.
 
KCConservative said:
1993? You mean since the first WTC attack? Is there a question here? Are you upset that we have been kept safe for nearly five years? I don't get it. What's your point? Your Bush hate is backfiring if you are actually upset with our safety.
Click to expand...

No, you are missing my point. I am saying that so far, Bush's record on keeping us safe is worse than Clinton's was. I think its great that we have not had another Terrorist attack since 9/11. However, I don't think we can say either way whether or not it has been a result of "the war on terror".
 
It would be rather difficult to argue otherwise. I mean, if not for an aggressive war against terrorist activity around the world, then what would you attribute it to? A war on terror is a lot better than no war on terror. I refuse to make this a Bush vs Clinton thing. I'm not sure why it has to go there.
 

If the war on terror is the only thing that has prevented another terrorist attack, then why is it that we did not have a foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1993 to 1991?

Why is it that Canada has not been attacked?

Why is it that the number of worldwide terrorist attacks have gone up instead of gone down?
 
Desperation. The bugs always scatter when I fumigate.
 
KCConservative said:
Desperation. The bugs always scatter when I fumigate.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the difference between empirical evidence and coincidence?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Do you not understand the difference between empirical evidence and coincidence?
Click to expand...
Face it. Not everyone subscribes to your cut and run philosophy.
 
KCConservative said:
Face it. Not everyone subscribes to your cut and run philosophy.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer his question. Maybe you should do that instead of calling him names and making straw man attacks.

Why is it that we went from 1993-2001 without a single foreign terrorist attack, when there was no war on terror? If we escaped foreign attacks for 8 years just relying on basic terror-intelligence and luck, what makes you so sure that the last terror-free 4.5 years have been a result of the war on terror?
 
Kandahar said:
You didn't answer his question. Maybe you should do that instead of calling him names and making straw man attacks.
Click to expand...
Sure, as soon as you tell me what name I called anyone.
 
KCConservative said:
Sure, as soon as you tell me what name I called anyone.
Click to expand...

What a brilliant response. Answer the damn question.
 
Kandahar said:
What a brilliant response. Answer the damn question.
Click to expand...
I see. So does that mean I really didn't call anyone a name? Were you being untruthful, kandahar?
 
KCConservative said:
I see. So does that mean I really didn't call anyone a name? Were you being untruthful, kandahar?
Click to expand...

I'll just interpret that as your concession of intellectual defeat on the subject at hand.
 
Kandahar said:
I'll just interpret that as your concession of intellectual defeat on the subject at hand.
Click to expand...
And I'll interpret that as your tactic of accusing others of name calling, but when called on the carpet, you shrivel up in the corner.
 
In December 2004, James Fallows, writing for the The Atlantic, wrote a lengthy piece about Iran. Titled "Will Iran Be next", he described a war-gaming exercise conducted by The Atlantic that simulated preparations for a U.S. assault on Iran. Admittedly stripped down to gaming essentials, and run for only three hours, it dealt strictly with how an American President might respond, militarily or otherwise, to Iran's rapid progress toward developing nuclear weapons. The simulation's credibility was enhanced by its being run by a retired Air Force colonel who has run these types of exercises for the National War College for twenty years. Participants included David Kay and others with extensive direct experience in government (including CIA veterans) and strong intellectual credentials.

A particularly interesting part of the summary of the results of the exercise was,

"But for the purposes most likely to interest the next American President—that is, as a tool to slow or stop Iran's progress toward nuclear weaponry—the available military options are likely to fail in the long term. A full-scale "regime change" operation has both obvious and hidden risks. The obvious ones are that the United States lacks enough manpower and equipment to take on Iran while still tied down in Iraq, and that domestic and international objections would be enormous. The most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests. Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States. It could work with other oil producers to punish America economically. It could, as Hammes warned, apply the logic of "asymmetric," or "fourth-generation," warfare, in which a superficially weak adversary avoids a direct challenge to U.S. military power and instead strikes the most vulnerable points in American civilian society, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11. If it thought that the U.S. goal was to install a wholly new regime rather than to change the current regime's behavior, it would have no incentive for restraint.

What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a "branches and sequels" decision—that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does—as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed. Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals—and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment. "

The overall conclusion was expressed this way:

"...I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner [designer of the simulation,] said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." "

The article is now over a year old, and as noted above, the simulation was quite short in duration, which IMO lessened it usefullness somewhat. Nonetheless, given the current state of play with Iran, it is well worth the read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…