Defense Secretary totally opposed to military action in Iran

[Linkster]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1426601.ece

Hooray for someone finally having the balls to stand up and say that the path is wrong - note the paragraph talking about Gates' position

[Bill]

C'mon, Bushie Baby, don't be a pussy, don't worry 'bout no impeachment, give the order, set the bombs to flyin'!

All the republicans are right behind ya Bushie Boy! All the Christians are waiting for you to start the rapture! The temple has to be rebuilt, and there's something that has to be destroyed first. You're the man with the plan, the second coming, you speak to God, don't let a little thing like America hold you back from your destiny!

[Linkster]

Bill - unfortunately isnt it a real shame that he actually believes in that shit :)
I would have had a little remorse for him (actually I wouldnt have) until he had to say out loud that some god had talked to him and told him his plan :lmao2:

[Mr. Blue]

I know that most people will say let's get diplomacy working and that's all well and good, but should you ever admit to anyone that the military option is off the table?

Personally that seems like a tactical error admitting that you won't use a military option if a country doesn't comply to the will of the UN (let's remember the UN even though it is a ridiculous paper tiger is still the point man on this issue). So, the UN will do what? Pass resolutions? That has a long track record of success, lol. The UN recommends economic sanctions...that's all well and good, but again, look how great economic sanctions worked out in the past.

So, what's the armchair quarterback call on this topic? What do you do with Iran?

[Linkster]

Why do you do anything with Iran - or is this more nation-building that the US "needs" to do? They are their own soveriegn country - leave them alone I guess would be the right thing to do

[Mr. Blue]

So you think Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear program and develop nuclear weapons as well?

[Mr. Blue]

btw, I'm not criticizing, I'm just curious...I often like to ask people what they would do if they were President and had to make the call on an issue. I find you get some interesting answers and different perspectives :)

[Bill]

I'm not sure it matters what Gates says - until proven otherwise, you have to assume he's a hack, a puppet, and a hatchetman.

It's only to be expected that this administration would claim one thing while doing another. Say you're not going to attack while creating a pretext for an attack. It would only take one event, and surely we could push Iran into doping something rash.

Or just flat out lie, like we seem to have done with that big group of indigenes we killed at Najaf a little while back, you know, the supposed cult guys who convieniently sat in an orchard and waited a day and a half for us to drop guided bombs on them.

[Bill]

So you think Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear program and develop nuclear weapons as well?

I'm not sure we can have armegeddon and the rapture if the persians don't have the bomb.

Gotta have something to wipe out the dome of the rock.

So maybe it's for the best.

[Linkster]

I certainly think they should be able to make those types of decisions by themselves - and obviously the US had no problem with it when they supplied all the materials to them to do it many years ago as well as the technology from US companies - it also helps with reducing consumption of coal and oil which puts out way more radioactivity into the atmosphere and reduces the economic load straining the carbon based markets.

I guess my first question to anyone questioning any country developing alternate sources of energy would have to be - what gives the United States the ability and right to try to regulate those things - are we better than the rest of the world or do we just have a case of trying to be the big bad bully that is setting itself up to get a huge knockdown in the future - seems to me that everyone on this planet "was created equal" if you believe in those types of things - more importantly - we have already "allowed" many countries that are a lot more antagonistic towards the US and other countries to develop their nuclear programs - Pakistan and Israel come to mind - and in all cases either we or the French through our overseas based US corporations have supplied the materials to do so.

Getting back to Iran - it seems a little unusual that we gave billions in parts to them to build a nuclear program - yet with the sword rattling that goes on in the media you would think that they were our worst enemy for some reason - I totally believe you have to look beyond the surface noise some times and look at what the US has really physically done to get a clear picture of where this is headed - and so far it looks like for the last 40 years we have supported thier building a nuclear program

[Mr. Blue]

Well, I think there's a few things to consider. First, whether the U.S. is the only country that is concerned with Iran developing nuclear weapons. Since they're getting reprimanded by the UN...I'd take it that this isn't only a concern for the U.S., even though it'll probably end up that way while the rest of the world sits on the sidelines.

Secondly Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...as did many other countries. This Treaty allows countries to develop a nuclear program to be used for electricity, etc, etc, and countries are allowed to build peaceful nuclear programs. I.E. to replace the use of fossil fuels etc. One can say that as long as a country developed nuclear technology for this intent it would be acceptable to everyone.

So really the only thing Iran would be in violation of with the NNPT is that they're enriching uranium for the use of building weapons.

Now, I'd personally like to see nuclear weapons off the table for everyone...no need for any country to have that type of destructive power. Right now there's 8 countries that possess nukes...would anyone want to see 30 countries possessing nukes? I know I wouldn't...so yeah the NNPT was signed for a reason and a pretty good one I think.

[Linkster]

Im wondering how you know what purpose they are enriching the uranium for? After all you have to have enriched uranium for the more modern power generating reactors these days(actually all the operating reactors in the world use some form of enriched uranium - just depends on the level to which they are enriched) so its really up to your interpretation of the "fear mongering propaganda" that some in the US administration seem to take - as to which use the enriching is for.

[stefan segal]

I certainly think they should be able to make those types of decisions by themselves."
Linkster.

100% Right...The only way the West could honestly carry today's position against Iran's proliferation, is if the West had already faithfully honored its nuclear disarminant program and Iran would be the sole holder of these weapons, and thereby disrupting the blissful harmony of the family of Nations.

If one is the type chicken-chickenhawk, who fears allah gaining that kind of power in his world order protest/demonstration kit..they are right to be afraid...but they should have considered this before attacking a peaceful sovereign country...it just might give them notions about finding a country of their own targeting to attack one quiet evening, when all the collaterals are home watching butch on the TV.

Stefan

[exarmyranger]

Yep,the USA since the end of WW11,and the 1948 declaration of Israel's independence,has for various reason's showered the Jewish government,with Arm's/Ordinance&Dollars...,"In order to help preserve Democracy in the growing nation of Israel".Uhuh sure!To level the field if a Palestine/Israel armed conflict.yeah right!Then "shit those Jews are capable of kicking the remaining Islamic sect's asses in a N.Y.minute...We better make sure Iran,is at least capable of some form of resistance.HUH!The reality imo...Israel shares her development of new weapons tech.with us.ex

[Mr. Blue]

Im wondering how you know what purpose they are enriching the uranium for? After all you have to have enriched uranium for the more modern power generating reactors these days(actually all the operating reactors in the world use some form of enriched uranium - just depends on the level to which they are enriched) so its really up to your interpretation of the "fear mongering propaganda" that some in the US administration seem to take - as to which use the enriching is for.

Well, firstly at the moment this is a matter for the UN...Iran signed the NNPT, there's certain guidelines that are set forth by that treaty, and if Iran is following the NNPT to the letter they should have no problem satisfying UN inspectors to prove they're following the terms of the treaty.

Your point regarding who has the right to tell another country what they should and shouldn't do is valid, however, when you sign a treaty you should respect the terms of said treaty.

Now I understand that you're saying sovereign nations have the right to do whatever they want, no one should interfere with that right, etc. However, nuclear weapons are Armageddon type weapons...once the nukes fly, it pretty much means global devastation...8 countries have them...for me that's 8 too many. Proliferation of Nukes needs to be regulated, the danger is too great, and that's kind of the reason 188 countries signed the NNPT in the first place.

[exarmyranger]

I am with you(as any other sane person would be)on the development of nuclear warheads/and delivery systems,and any other W.M.D.'s as well.However as a person of mixed blood(1/2 Irish,1/2 native american(Lacota Sioux)I'm more of the Treaties were made to be broken genre,as in the "no piece of pulpwood ever stopped a bullet from being fired,or offered any protection from it's hitting an intended target".Reguardless of how many signitures appear under the "We the (undersigned)agree to...untill the"...what?till the mountains have turned to dust,or as long as the sun rises in the east&sets in the west! I hope (not one of my strong points,but I do have some still in reserve),hard to say how much hope I have managed to hold onto though...as I'm not sure of it's(hope)shelf life.Time will tell,or so I've been told.:rolleyes: ..t/c Mr.Blue :cool: ex.

[Bill]

If my sociopathic neighbor was threatening to come over to my place and kick my ass and kill me, I might stick my hand under my coat and say I had a gun, and if he said "show me the gun or I'll kick your ass", I might say "Screw off, I'll show you this gun when I shoot your crazy ass with it.".

All the while looking around for a big stick to bust him with if he's enough of a maniac to attack anyway.

[exarmyranger]

If my sociopathic neighbor was threatening to come over to my place and kick my ass and kill me, I might stick my hand under my coat and say I had a gun, and if he said "show me the gun or I'll kick your ass", I might say "Screw off, I'll show you this gun when I shoot your crazy ass with it.".

All the while looking around for a big stick to bust him with if he's enough of a maniac to attack anyway.Yo Bill,that is exactly what I'd do,as well as done...The only difference(s) being I have a real gun,and my sociopathic neighbor just fucked with The proverbial "Wrong Guy"and as a result died of acute lead poisoning,after having been warned to cease and desist...
:talktothehand: ex

[juggernaut]

This is the coldwar all over again. Just a new way to build up arms over the next 20 or so years. I don't have a problem with that as this time we are dealing with some crazy people. But is it even possible for us to head over? Sure. The military can be spread pretty thin, just expect more bodies. That's something the American public is not going to stand for.

BTW Been a while, been doing shit. But I'm back bitches lol.

[Mr. Blue]

I am with you(as any other sane person would be)on the development of nuclear warheads/and delivery systems,and any other W.M.D.'s as well.However as a person of mixed blood(1/2 Irish,1/2 native american(Lacota Sioux)I'm more of the Treaties were made to be broken genre,as in the "no piece of pulpwood ever stopped a bullet from being fired,or offered any protection from it's hitting an intended target".Reguardless of how many signitures appear under the "We the (undersigned)agree to...untill the"...what?till the mountains have turned to dust,or as long as the sun rises in the east&sets in the west! I hope (not one of my strong points,but I do have some still in reserve),hard to say how much hope I have managed to hold onto though...as I'm not sure of it's(hope)shelf life.Time will tell,or so I've been told.:rolleyes: ..t/c Mr.Blue :cool: ex.

I agree that treaties get broken, but I'd hate to see conventional warfare replaced by nuclear warfare. Have that option available to as many countries that want nukes and it's just a matter of time before someone gets an itchy trigger finger.

As I said 8 countries with nukes is 8 too many and I wish those countries would disarm.

[Bill]

So what are you saying we should do about it, Mr Blue?

[Mr. Blue]

So what are you saying we should do about it, Mr Blue?

There's no easy solution, if you ignore Iran, let them do as they want...how would you feel if say a million people end up dead in a nuclear attack or thousands of people die with a dirty bomb? I mean you can talk about the right of a sovereign nation to do as they please and that's great in theory, but life isn't a theoretical exercise.

If you confront Iran, take out the facilities, you stand a good chance of creating a further rift between the middle east countries and the U.S. Also, not a savory prospect, but at this point can the ME countries hate us anymore?

What would I do? It's hard to say as my view on world politics probably would have avoided us getting into this mess in the first place. As I've said on a few occasions I'm an isolationist by nature and think American foreign policy has been flawed for the last, oh, I don't know, 100 years or so.

The problem is that the genie is out of the bottle now and America has placed itself in the role of a quasi-world police and masters of the universe. It's almost impossible for us now to escape that persona we've created.

So, give diplomacy a chance, let the worthless UN take a shot at it, and then lets do one on one talks with Iran if the UN fails, and see if we can solve this peacefully. If Iran is building a nuclear program for peaceful reasons...they should put their cards on the table and prove they've lived up to the NNPT.

If diplomacy fails, I don't think the U.S. will have to lift a finger...Israel will take care of it...I'm a betting man and I have no doubt that Israel will hobble the Iranian nuclear program if diplomacy fails.

[Bill]

There's only one weapon that can take out the underground complexes they are using to run their centrifuges, you know.

[exarmyranger]

So what are you saying we should do about it, Mr Blue?
:oldman: "Yes sireee,that thar's progress for ya"!"Gowl dern shames what it is""Hell boy if they ain't no hill(s)what needs took,or towns what needs liberatin,or fields full of landmines ta cross...and now adays we'uns just push buttons,sit back an watch how we doin,on one of them big ole t.v.'s what takes up a whole dern wall." "Yall tell me now." "Wheres the point of having a war once they take out the all fun stuff!" Why,back in Wilsons War we :yay: came home to a :hero:welcome back...Not no more,jest push yer button(s)and Ka-BOOM!Hellfire jest plain:crazzy:what it is...ex

[Mr. Blue]

There's only one weapon that can take out the underground complexes they are using to run their centrifuges, you know.

Well, yes...but I believe it can also be done with conventional bunker busters, but the Nuclear bunker buster, yep...Israel probably has them and probably would use them if they feel Iran is a serious threat to them.

[Bill]

So, just in case they _might_ want to build a bomb, and not even a hydrogen bomb, we should nuke them?

Why didn't we nuke Pakistan? Or should we nuke them now, just in case?

Obviously we should nuke North Korea - but why are we waiting?

We better just grit our teeth and make plans to be nuking little countries on a regular basis for the next few centuries.

I guess that will teach them to want a bomb to defend themselves against us.

[exarmyranger]

So, just in case they _might_ want to build a bomb, and not even a hydrogen bomb, we should nuke them?

Why didn't we nuke Pakistan? Or should we nuke them now, just in case?

Obviously we should nuke North Korea - but why are we waiting?

We better just grit our teeth and make plans to be nuking little countries on a regular basis for the next few centuries.

I guess that will teach them to want a bomb to defend themselves against us.:thumbsup: Now your talking,and besides,God is on our side...For now...:lmao2: RIGHT? ex

[Mr. Blue]

So, just in case they _might_ want to build a bomb, and not even a hydrogen bomb, we should nuke them?

Why didn't we nuke Pakistan? Or should we nuke them now, just in case?

Obviously we should nuke North Korea - but why are we waiting?

We better just grit our teeth and make plans to be nuking little countries on a regular basis for the next few centuries.

I guess that will teach them to want a bomb to defend themselves against us.

Nuking isn't really an option anyone will use...They can do it with conventional bunker busters, but yes they do have nuclear bunker busters that could be used as well.

Also, we? No, Israel. Does Israel have a legitimate fear of Iran? They probably do. 1. Iran financially backs hezbollah 2. Iran has called for the destruction of Israel 3. They hold conferences that the holocaust never happened....So let's see, does Israel have reason to fear Iran. Yes they do. Will Israel restrain itself if they think potential harm can come to Israel? Umm, have they ever?

As for North Korea, they signed the NNPT as well, what will happen there...let's see, diplomacy may work there...if N. Korea develops a working delivery method...Japan will respond. Doubt it? Why do you think Japan recently launched 4 spy satellites to monitor N. Korea. Talks may work in N. Korea...however, again the U.S. will take a backseat to the power in the region, namely Japan.

Pakistan, never signed the NNPT. India never signed the NNPT. Israel never signed the NNPT. That's probably why the UN/U.S. hasn't so much as snuffled in their direction.

Now, personally...I'd like to see the U.S. take all their toys and go home...just say to the rest of the world, screw you guys...we're going home. That's just not a real option, but gee it would be kind of interesting to try it.

At the end of the day though I find it ridiculous that countries develop nuclear weapons at all. There's so many better things to spend your money on...feeding the poor, education, health care, etc, etc, etc. Do I want to see every country developing weapons technology they can never use without bringing apocalyptic results? No, I don't.

But what the hell...I guess every country should have nukes so they can measure their nuclear penis size against other countries.

[exarmyranger]

Mankind (with the exception of Hindu's)has been killing it's fellow Human Beings since we crawled out of the swamp and climbed a tree.All races,creeds,of men in this the 21st century are still (some more than others perhaps...)capable of primitive reasoning,to legitamize unessesary acts of violence, our DNA which contains the memory of our rise from a food source,for carnivore's...to masters of the world.We did'nt get started killing each other in large quanities,till (thanx to the protiens in red meat)our brain size increased,enough to reason that,since they had to travel farther,and farther to find food/game.they may as well move closer to thier quarry.Hence they crossed paths with other groups of Humanoids.Again primitive logic tells the nomadic as well as the regions groups...There just was'nt enough soup to go all the way around.So,being enlightend by thier growing intellect.They set about killing each other in order to ensure thier particular groups/clans survival.if you prefer the In The Beggining,slant on evolution.Cain Slew Able for starters...:bowdown:to the all holy $$$$$$$$ :lmao2: ex :truce: