[lilmac1994]

Action needs to be taken now...not later or tomorrow....NOW!!!!

What action do you want to be taken now?

If he agrees with me, and he stated that in his comment, the action he wants to see is for us to step up and do something about it. I can gaurentee you, that if Iran, or any country for that matter, EVER launches a nuke, there will be more to follow. One single nuclear attack on a single country will end this world as we know it. It is a simple as that.

[Plantagenet]

Action needs to be taken now...not later or tomorrow....NOW!!!!

What action do you want to be taken now?

If he agrees with me, and he stated that in his comment, the action he wants to see is for us to step up and do something about it.

Yes, I understand you want us to do something.

Do you understand that I'm asking just what exactly it is that you want us to do?

[Cog]

Its rather too bad that the armchair generals both here and in Washington, who want to start yet another Mideast war, don't have to fight in them.

[Keith_McClary]

Its rather too bad that the armchair generals both here and in Washington, who want to start yet another Mideast war, don't have to fight in them.

Lawmakers have loved ones in combat zone

At least nine members of Congress have sons or daughters who have served in Iraq, according to the U.S. Senate Library.

That's from 2007, couldn't find anything more recent.

[Cog]

Ahh so those nine people justify starting another reckless war in the Mideast?

What great insight.

[Keith_McClary]

Ahh so those nine people justify starting another reckless war in the Mideast?

What great insight.

No, I mean 98% of Congress don't have their own kids at risk. The ruling classes guide their offspring into safer and more lucrative careers.

[careinke]

Its rather too bad that the armchair generals both here and in Washington, who want to start yet another Mideast war, don't have to fight in them.

Lawmakers have loved ones in combat zone

At least nine members of Congress have sons or daughters who have served in Iraq, according to the U.S. Senate Library.

That's from 2007, couldn't find anything more recent.

Gee 9 out of 500 +, I'm so proud of the amount of skin the congress actually has in the game. NOT! (This is in no way means I don't appreciate those that DO have skin in the game). I wonder if the 9 want to go to war.

[gollum]

Its rather too bad that the armchair generals both here and in Washington, who want to start yet another Mideast war, don't have to fight in them.

Lawmakers have loved ones in combat zone

At least nine members of Congress have sons or daughters who have served in Iraq, according to the U.S. Senate Library.

That's from 2007, couldn't find anything more recent.

Wow nine out of 535. I've had one buddy from the army go over, a friends son went twice, and another guy from my Gulf War unit lost a relative over there. Nine members... great for the nine, to the other 526..... fuck you.

[lilmac1994]

Yes, I understand you want us to do something.

Do you understand that I'm asking just what exactly it is that you want us to do?

[/quote]

Action needs to be taken. We can't just keep sitting on the sidelines. Iran has had the option to start another world war for a long time, and we just sit there and wait for them to start it. We keep hearing their threats and acting like nothing will happen. What if it does? Then it's our fault for not stepping up and taking charge of this situation. Obama wants to handle this diplomaticly? No. We need to take the nukes. It's that simple, but our so called "Commander in Chief" Thinks the best way to handle a situation that could possibly end the world by sitting down and having tea with their damn leaders.

[dbruning]

"We need to take the nukes."

I thought the argument is they are close to having the materials/technology to build nukes and that is what needs to be stopped...so there isn't really anything to take yet nuke-wise. If so, the only way to do this would be to destroy the infrastructure that makes this development possible....they would react and have the capacity to make it unpleasant..unless they can get Russia or China involved in which case "unpleasant" should be replaced with "deadly".

If they already have nukes, having been given some by a friendly agency, do we know where they are being stored? If not, we have no target. If we do know where they are being stored why is the general story that we need to stop them from getting them? This suggests we don't know and so have no target, which means we'd need to physically invade and search after some serious boom-boom to prevent them from taking exception to being invaded.

In either case, I don't see them being stopped from developing the technology and building nukes or from continuing to have them if they already do have some in their possession without a serious war developing which could very well pull in the players needed to have that world war we were trying to prevent in the first place.

"Action needs to be taken. We can't just keep sitting on the sidelines. Iran has had the option to start another world war for a long time, and we just sit there and wait for them to start it."

So does China, Russia, and several other countries. I'm not convinced that the United States should be the police force for the world. So far I haven't seen a great track record and I do worry about when some clumsy action escalates into pretty glowing craters.

At the same time I freely recognize Iran's stated intention of destroying Israel as something that won't be permitted, so we're operating under a closing window to do anything diplomatic or otherwise.

All told:
I blame the US for causing so much discontent in the middle east.
I blame Iran for declaring they will nuke Israel at their earliest convenience
I blame Israel for declaring they will attack Iran if Iran tries to develop nuclear capability.
I blame myself for my participation in a culture that is so damned addicted to oil - none of us are blameless.

Essentially we have set the playing board up so no one can win, except those that profit on carnage and death. If we take it as a given that the only way Iran will stop being interested in nuclear goodness is by force, can we afford the fight to make that happen? I'm not sure. If nothing is done and Iran and Israel aren't saber rattling, we still get a war with nukes going off.

No matter what choices are made, the outcome will not be pleasant. No wonder some people are awaiting the rapture with such fervor.

Sorry for the rambling

[Serial_Worrier]

Israel is going to be bombing Iran any day now, it's a done deal. Let the fireworks begin!

[rangerone314]

A few Stealth bombers carrying nuclear bombs and some nuclear cruise missiles could turn Iran into a glass parking lot in short order and end the threat permanently. We could even announce this is our new policy on non-proliferation. Country A starts a nuclear weapon program, Country A gets glass-parking-lotted.

I'm willing to bet after such a display, fewer tinpot dictatorships would be willing to wave their dick at us.

[Plantagenet]

It is unlikely that any country except the First World plus China, India, etc (i.e. the existing "nuclear club") will ever build one. Since the older designs produce Plutonium which is easily made into weapons, the nuclear club is not accepting any new members.....unless Vladimir Putin sells some in the Middle East.

That would be ...... very bad.

In fact, it was reported just a week ago that Putin is in negotiations to sell a second nuclear reactor to Iran.

Report that Russia building second nuclear reactor in Iran

[Synapsid]

Plantagenet,

The original plan was for Russia to build four (I think) reactors at Bushehr, so a second one would mark a return to the original plan. Russia supplies the fuel and removes the spent fuel; Iran is a customer.

[KaiserJeep]

The original plan was for Saddam Hussein to build a reactor at Osirak in Iraq. The Israeli Air Force turned it into a smoking hole in the ground before it was fueled. Saddam kept trying and came too close, but never succeeded.

That IS what will happen to Iran if they try this, Israel will take it out with lots of help from other countries, some covert and some not so covert. Which category the USA is in depends upon just when the reactor is almost complete - before or after the GOP takes the White House.

Putin can literally pound sand to construct the reactor, and if he is smart, he'll get paid up front and make it clear that the Mullahs own the defense of the reactor site. Israel can build stealth drones with "bunker buster" sized conventional warheads - cruise mega-missiles. Because they only have to fly one way, the payloads of explosives can be 2X larger than the bombs that hit Osirak. (If the distance was the same instead of being greater, even larger.)

[Plantagenet]

The .... reactor at Osirak in Iraq. The Israeli Air Force turned it into a smoking hole in the ground before it was fueled.

That IS what will happen to Iran if they try this, Israel will take it out with lots of help from other countries

Thats a nice fantasy, but Iran already has a nuclear reactor in operation at Bushehr. The Russians are negotiating to build as many as 3 more for Iran. Once they are fueled and in operation it is highly unlikely that Israel or any other country will "take it out" as that would release radioactivity and cause a regional disaster.


Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

[Tanada]

The .... reactor at Osirak in Iraq. The Israeli Air Force turned it into a smoking hole in the ground before it was fueled.

That IS what will happen to Iran if they try this, Israel will take it out with lots of help from other countries

Thats a nice fantasy, but Iran already has a nuclear reactor in operation at Bushehr. The Russians are negotiating to build as many as 3 more for Iran. Once they are fueled and in operation it is highly unlikely that Israel or any other country will "take it out" as that would release radioactivity and cause a regional disaster.

Depends on how you define "take out". First its hard to make weapons with power reactors, second if you destroy the cooling tower and transformer farm then the reactor has to shut down because it lacks cooling and a place to send the power it generates when running.

[KaiserJeep]

No, it's a fantasy to believe that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons from this deal.

Remember that conventional reactors "breed" other isotopes and both Plutonium and enhanced amounts of U-235 are present in used fuel.

The scenario would be that four reactors go online and are used for some time, enough to produce radioactives capable of being re-processed into nuclear weapons grade materials. Meanwhile the country of Iran gains invaluable experience in nuclear operations. Then all they have to do is nationalize the reactors and manufacture the weapons from existing fuel. The optimal timing will soon be understood, meaning that they will act when the maximum number of weapons can be produced from the Russian-sourced materials.

The difference between the Middle East and the Western world is that in the Western world, that MAD practice (as in Mutually Assured Destruction) actually prevented nuclear war. The current fragile peace in the International oil patch is based upon a nuclear-armed Israel holding off the entire rest of the Middle East who have only conventional weapons.

The problem, from Putin's view, is that Israel is a firm US ally. He has to rock the boat to gain Russian influence in the area.

So he is doing so. He thinks that a "limited" nuclear exchange is avoidable. He is wrong on two counts: 1) He cannot prevent the War and 2) It won't be so limited, it's the touchpoint of World War 3.

Because nuclear energy is a clear benefit to those such as the Western democracies where "enlightened self-interest" includes keeping the peace. But in places like the Middle East, where "enlightened self-interest" may include the burning of all non-Muslims AND the faithful themselves, it is a busted theory.

As a kid, I remember when the Russians were setting off the biggest nukes that had ever been built. My Mother told me I could not go out and play in the wonderful new white powdery snow because it contained Strontium-90 fallout. My Dad dug a hole in the back yard and lined it with concrete blocks and we hung bunk beds from the walls. Then (he was a military officer) he had to go serve on a warship. The Cuban Missile Crisis happened.

Later when he came home, he found that me and my brother had turned the "fallout shelter" into the best damned "fort" that anyone had ever seen, and our backyard was the focal point for the weekly (darn near every weekend) game of "war". He turned the wooden bunks into shelving, and built more, and my Mother filled the newly-renamed "root cellar" with fragile glass jars full of food, and stored canned goods and emergency supplies there.

My brother and me were banished from our "fort". A little later we developed an interest in cars and girls. The first hint of relief was the Kubrick film I will abbreviate as "Dr. Strangelove". But the lesson is that when the enemy does not have the same interests, values, and culture as yourself, just about anything can happen.

Believe me when I say it is more likely than ever before that the Middle East will touch off the collapse.

[Sixstrings]

Underscoring the partisan divide over Netanyahu’s address, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said afterwards that as a friend of Israel, she was near tears during his speech. She called the speech "an insult to the intelligence of the United States" and said she was "saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”

As many as 60 of the 232 Democratic members of Congress sat out the address.

Netanyahu entered the chamber to a cacophony of cheers and applause, shaking hands with dozens of lawmakers, including House Speaker John Boehner, before taking a podium and telling lawmakers he was deeply humbled.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/03/us-usa-israel-idUSKBN0LZ0BS20150303

Obama and Netanyahu: A clash of world views, not just personalities

"I sometimes wonder if we have a situation where we have someone who is a law professor and is very cerebral and has this universal sense of how things are supposed to unfold under international law," Makovsky said, referring to Obama.

"On the other side, you have someone who is convinced he lives in a region called the Middle East and believes that a lot of the categories that they teach in law school are not always applicable in this neighborhood."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/01/politics/obama-benjamin-netanyahu-clash/

I don't know why Nancy Pelosi is "stunned" by the "condescension." Netanyahu is right. This is a deal that's not a deal. The ludicrous thing about it, is that the whole issue is just however much Iran promises to delay getting the bomb. So right now the negotiations are at a ten year window, and even D's like Feinstein say if it were up to her then really 15 years is better and 10 years isn't enough.

But the whole thing is hogwash anyway. The Iranians can just lie and cheat about it. They're not even giving anything up. The "deal" is really just sanctioning Iran's nuclear track, it's paving the way for them to get nukes. And then everyone else in the region will want them, and then it's a nuclear war over there, but hey maybe that's 10 years from now so not Obama's problem right?

I can't find the quote, but the White House released a scathing statement after Netanyahu's speech. They're very bitter about this.

Here's what I think -- our own President DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT the deal at all, to us, to anyone. At least Netanyahu talked about it, in Congress, and to the American people -- whereas Obama has not. This administration just gets bitter and upset when anyone tries to talk about it.

[Pops]

PO Forums
Geopolitics:
Discussions related to the global politics of energy use and acquisition.

I'm pretty sure whatever you have to say about Pelosi has nothing to do with energy. Start your threads in Open or Americas discussion unless they are directly related to an energy story.