Some Sense on Iran

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]kroby wrote:
Back on topic…

Iran has set gas consumption quotas that have the population in an uproar. Some are calling for the head of the President for his stance (nuclear energy-cum-weaponry) that will result in UN sanctions.

40% gasoline imports will be severely curtailed.

Couple that with rising inflation and cost of living

And switching off the mobile text messaging system

And ordering journalists to not report on problems caused by rations

The president doesn’t hold as much sway over his populace like Kim Jong Il, but the pattern is most certainly recognized.

Will the Iranians throw out the hardliners?[/quote]

Here’s to hoping.

JeffR

22

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Where are the: “Well, iran was the real enemy. Why attack Iraq when iran truly has WMD crowd.”
[/quote]

Oh, so Bush was just one letter off when he went after Iraq’s WMD’s? Too bad Bush has zero credibility amongst the voters and the international community. Only completely delusional (read: Cheney) idiots are seriously considering a military strike against Iran right now. Most estimates place Iran’s nuclear program 10 years away from even a testing phase. That is hardly an emergency, any more than Iraq was an emergency.

Bush’s military swagger was a complete failure in dealing with North Korea, and it will likely be a complete failure with Iran too. Too bad Bush has approval ratings that are in the high 20s (worse than Jimmy Carter now) because it kinda puts these recreational neocon power grabs on hold.

That’s probably for the best, as Bush is already losing military adventures on two fronts, so he can hardly open a third front based purely on speculation and gumption.

23

[quote]hello bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Where are the: “Well, iran was the real enemy. Why attack Iraq when iran truly has WMD crowd.”

Oh, so Bush was just one letter off when he went after Iraq’s WMD’s? Too bad Bush has zero credibility amongst the voters and the international community. Only completely delusional (read: Cheney) idiots are seriously considering a military strike against Iran right now. Most estimates place Iran’s nuclear program 10 years away from even a testing phase. That is hardly an emergency, any more than Iraq was an emergency.

Bush’s military swagger was a complete failure in dealing with North Korea, and it will likely be a complete failure with Iran too. Too bad Bush has approval ratings that are in the high 20s (worse than Jimmy Carter now) because it kinda puts these recreational neocon power grabs on hold.

That’s probably for the best, as Bush is already losing military adventures on two fronts, so he can hardly open a third front based purely on speculation and gumption.[/quote]

Hello, bradley.

Most intelligence estimates place a weapons grade iranian nuclear weapon in the years 2008-2009.

You have nothing else worth discussing.

We all know that no matter what the enemy or the provocation, if a Republican suggested it, you’d be against it.

JeffR

24

No Jeff, ten years for an Iranian nuke, although Bush’s idiotic tough-talking posture has indeed motivated Iran to try to speed up it’s program. That’s exactly what happened when Bush tried to talk tough with North Korea… they accelearted their program in response. The only sources who say Iran will have a nuke in the next few years are Bush administration sources, and they have lost all credibility.

Bush’s North Korea policy utterly failed, and the same approach is failing again now, with Iran.

Jeffy, why do you support Bush’s failure so whole-heartedly?

25

[quote]hello bradley wrote:
No Jeff, ten years for an Iranian nuke, although Bush’s idiotic tough-talking posture has indeed motivated Iran to try to speed up it’s program. That’s exactly what happened when Bush tried to talk tough with North Korea… they accelearted their program in response. The only sources who say Iran will have a nuke in the next few years are Bush administration sources, and they have lost all credibility.

Bush’s North Korea policy utterly failed, and the same approach is failing again now, with Iran.

Jeffy, why do you support Bush’s failure so whole-heartedly?[/quote]

Hello, bradley:

I. Israel: 2008

II. Abc/Institute for Science and International Security: 2009

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/exclusive_iran_.html

III. IAEA (note how it has changed from 4 to 3 years in a matter of months): 2010

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1932715.htm

Oh, bradley. If you want me to take on your silliness regarding north korea, kindly acknowledge that your estimates have been thrown into considerable doubt.

If not, I won’t be educating you for free.

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

26

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Most intelligence estimates place a weapons grade iranian nuclear weapon in the years 2008-2009.
[/quote]

“If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis,” said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, “then you’re looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009.”

Jeffy, you are what is known as a “sloppy thinker”.

Lets review: IF they continue at this pace and can get the centrifuges to work, then POTENTIALLY they could have the MATERIAL to make a weapon. That ‘multiple-if’s’ quote doesn’t translate into what you said (see your own quote) although I do appreciate your efforts to fear-monger. (It works on the weaker people in your party.)

By the way, I made the important words bigger, just for you.

I understand if you’d rather skip over the North Korea fiasco.

Maybe you’d prefer to explain why Pakistan can have dozens of nuclear weapons, but Iran shouldn’t even have nuclear power, let alone the potential for a nuclear weapon. It’s an interesting double standard, eh?

27

[quote]bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Most intelligence estimates place a weapons grade iranian nuclear weapon in the years 2008-2009.

“If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis,” said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, “then you’re looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009.”

Jeffy, you are what is known as a “sloppy thinker”.

Lets review: IF they continue at this pace and can get the centrifuges to work, then POTENTIALLY they could have the MATERIAL to make a weapon. That ‘multiple-if’s’ quote doesn’t translate into what you said (see your own quote) although I do appreciate your efforts to fear-monger. (It works on the weaker people in your party.)

By the way, I made the important words bigger, just for you.

I understand if you’d rather skip over the North Korea fiasco.

Maybe you’d prefer to explain why Pakistan can have dozens of nuclear weapons, but Iran shouldn’t even have nuclear power, let alone the potential for a nuclear weapon. It’s an interesting double standard, eh?[/quote]

Hello, bradley:

Let’s review.

You were ironclad in your ten year estimate.

I just proved you wrong.

Your “rebuttal” proved nothing.

Betting that they aren’t going to go all out is a FOOL’S choice.

You ignored the other two predictions entirely.

Now, you either man up and admit you were in error, or you can kiss my righteous rear.

Got it?

Don’t bother claiming victory if you get no response after this.

In fact, I challenge you to man up, and then watch me take out your north korean argument.

However, I’m through playing dodge ball with you.

Either you admit when you have been proven wrong, or go troll elsewhere.

JeffR

28

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Maybe you’d prefer to explain why Pakistan can have dozens of nuclear weapons, but Iran shouldn’t even have nuclear power, let alone the potential for a nuclear weapon. It’s an interesting double standard, eh?[/quote]

Excellent point.

Add the fact that they’re hiding Ben-Laden and are ruled by a dictator and Bush’s pretexts crumble.

29

[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:

C’mon GD. Your a regular poster and a student of military history aren’t you?

Attacking the idealogy of a writer and the venue, particularly if it is the WSJ, of all papers, isn’t going to hold up. Maybe the NYT’s or the Guardian but not the WSJ. Additionally the WSJ clearly identifies this as an opinion piece. Something other papers do not do well.

The WSJ opinion pages are every bit as slanted as the NYT’s, and as I said, increasingly unhinged. Go look up Fouad Ajami’s piece on Scooter Libby, written a couple weeks ago, and tell me it’s not disgusting. Will take you five minutes.

Their news page, however, is considered even-handed, and indeed slightly left-wing.

Add in some minor skirmishes like WW1, WW2, GW1 and the Cold War, and the intent of his thoughts are a lot more clear. Somewhat more influential then the Russo-Turkish war upon history don’t you think?

Go back and read the list. World War I is on there, along with Vietnam, Napoleonic Wars, Iraq. We’re not talking minor wars. Nice try.

It’s PC to attack the neocons these days. Study why they became so influential and you will see a lot more then “spreading Democracy at the point of a gun”. It was a reaction more then anything else.

No question. I was in an office about twenty yards down the hall from Muravchik’s a few summers ago as an intern. I’m fully aware of the intellectual roots of neo-conservatism as a reaction to Sixties radicalism and Vietnam protesters. Has nothing to do with the beating their theorizing and bloviating has taken thanks to reality since 2003, nor does it change their very divided loyalties regarding Israel.

Ah see you did WW!..very good. I missed it. We didn’t invade Iraq during GW1 so I assume you mean the invasion of 2003. Cold War? I don’t think it makes your argument.

I think you are letting bias influence your opinion. The WSJ publishes opinion form a lot of sources and perspectives. That cannot be said of the NYT by any stretch.
[/quote]

Yes it can. I read both papers from time to time, but the Times will showcase the occasional conservative on its opinion pages, to feign balance, jsut as the Journal does with the occasional liberal. No difference.

Maybe you’re talking about a difference piece. Fouad Ajami, comparing Libby to a fallen soldier. You don’t find that to be a disgusting analogy?