Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE MADNESS OF BOMBING IRAN
THE TIMES OF LONDON ^ | 04/24/2006 | Robert Skidelsky

Posted on 04/24/2006 10:55:30 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

The madness of bombing Iran

Robert Skidelsky

As our leaders soften us up for a new war, here are the arguments we can’t afford to ignore....

THERE IS no doubt that Western opinion is being softened up for a US or Israeli strike against the Iranian centrifuges at Natanz. “Can anyone within range of Iran’s missiles feel safe?”, screams a full-page advertisement in the International Herald Tribune, displaying a map of the Eurasian land mass with Iran at its centre.

As part of the softening-up come the justifications, as false as the ones that preceded the Iraq war, but more disgraceful second time round. Here are the counter-arguments.

First, it needs to be trumpeted that a military strike now would be illegal under international law. The UN Security Council would never authorise it, since Iran has not breached the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that allows every signatory to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use. However, the hawks no longer even talk about the need to get Security Council approval — this is the measure of the damage to international law that Bush and Blair have inflicted.

The United States (or Israel) would claim it was acting in self-defence. But by long-established customary law a pre-emptive strike is justified only to defend against an “imminent and certain” attack. True enough, what happens tomorrow is never certain, but if another country’s troops start massing at one’s frontier that would be pretty good evidence of hostile intention. To claim the right of self-defence against a threat that may or may not emerge in five years’ time is to claim the right to wage aggressive war whenever one chooses. This was one of the two grounds on which Nazi leaders were convicted and executed at Nuremberg.

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, has recently been arguing that the right of pre-emption should be turned into the right of prevention, “rather than waiting for the next threat to come along”. If one happened to “learn” that a threat was being developed, would it not be one’s duty to zap it before it became actual? The answer is “no”. The more “potential” the threat, the less transparent it will be, the more flawed one's intelligence, and the more scope leaders will have to manipulate public opinion.

If Iraq taught us anything it should have been this. Tony Blair at first stuck to the accepted justification for a pre-emptive strike by claiming that Iraq was an immediate threat (the notorious “45 minutes”). When that was revealed as phoney, he fell back on the argument that Iraq “would have” acquired a WMD capability had we not overthrown Saddam Hussein. Such arguments allow unscrupulous leaders to make war on a whim.

To return from Mr Reid’s science fiction to earth: the technology of making nuclear weapons is not obscure. The Iranians claim to have enriched uranium to the “3.5 per cent level”. This is enough to use as nuclear fuel, but nowhere near enough for nuclear weapons. That requires up to 90 per cent enrichment, with 50 to 100 kilograms of it to make a single bomb. The Iranians say they have 164 centrifuges. But thousands would be needed to get a significant amount of weapons grade uranium. Experts say it would take five years or more to produce an atomic bomb from domestic processes.

The biggest danger of nuclear proliferation is not that rogue states will learn how to enrich uranium enough to build nuclear weapons but that already enriched uranium stocks will leak out to terrorist groups. A terrorist group that obtained 50kg of highly enriched uranium would probably be able to make a nuclear device. But it could make it anywhere — in a garage in London, for instance. The answer to this is not to bomb Iraq, but to reduce such stockpiles (mainly in Russia and the United States) to a minimum, and make sure they are under iron control.

People who support military action ask: how do we know that Iran isn't lying when it says that its uranium enrichment programme is intended only for civilian use? Surely, this is a clear case for invoking the precautionary principle: the risk may be slight but the consequences of ignoring it may be catastrophic. But no one is arguing that the risk should be ignored. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty now also allows for intrusive inspections. Hans Blix has written: “If you want a control system that gives a maximum of assurance, you can . . . require that inspectors have the right to go almost anywhere, any time, and demand any kind of documents.” Iran has accepted this protocol and operating under it the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence that it is developing a weapons programme. However, the protocol could be strengthened for states such as Iran whose leaders make Hitlerian pronouncements.

Given that it is possible, though difficult, to put in place a series of checks on Iran's nuclear ambitions, our leaders need to weigh very carefully the equivocal comfort that a so-called preventive strike may buy against the massive costs of mounting one. It is as certain as it can be that a strike against Iran would inflame Muslim hatred throughout the Middle East and beyond. It would interrupt oil supplies and disorganise the world economy. It would swell the insurgency in Iraq, multiply the numbers of “terrorists” and strengthen their determination to exact a terrible vengeance, especially on Israel. It would be against every counsel of prudent statesmanship. The danger is that we will drift into war because we lack the will and imagination to create institutions to make peace safe.

“The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated” will be debated tomorrow at the Royal Geographical Society in one of a series of Times debates. www.intelligencesquared.com


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bombing; iran; irannukes; iranstrikes; madness; natanz; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2006 10:55:33 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Thinking......

ok.....thought about it....now vaporize 'em.

2 posted on 04/24/2006 10:57:29 AM PDT by Fighting Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Another liberal keeps talking about attacking Iran. If only the Iranians were as terrified as liberals.


3 posted on 04/24/2006 10:57:42 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

4 posted on 04/24/2006 10:58:56 AM PDT by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Iran has accepted this protocol and operating under it the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence that it is developing a weapons programme.

This is not my understanding. Am I wrong?

5 posted on 04/24/2006 11:00:27 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
I'm with you. There's nothing like a good old fashioned pre-emptive ass kicking to keep the rest of the world in line.

L

6 posted on 04/24/2006 11:01:06 AM PDT by Lurker (Anyone who doesn't demand an immediate end to illegal immigration is aiding the flesh trade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

I hope everyone remembers this when our national language is Mandarin Chinese.


7 posted on 04/24/2006 11:01:34 AM PDT by FearNoMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: SirLinksalot
The biggest danger of nuclear proliferation is not that rogue states will learn how to enrich uranium enough to build nuclear weapons but that already enriched uranium stocks will leak out to terrorist groups. A terrorist group that obtained 50kg of highly enriched uranium would probably be able to make a nuclear device. But it could make it anywhere — in a garage in London, for instance.

Is this guy serious? Iran is in the process of enriching vast amounts of urianium. They fund Hamas. Aside from the fact they're lying about their intent with nuclear power, this is reason enough to worry.

9 posted on 04/24/2006 11:01:36 AM PDT by edpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
the hawks no longer even talk about the need to get Security Council approval — this is the measure of the damage to international law that Bush and Blair have inflicted.

Sorry, no sale.

Whatever damage has been done to "international law", has been done by the UNSC's utter failure to do ANYTHING except hand-wringing and whimpering.

10 posted on 04/24/2006 11:01:36 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
illegal under international law. The UN Security Council would never authorise it

Very confusing article. The UN has nothing to do with it and there is no such thing as international law. The UN should be in Tehran right now pleading with the Mad Mullahs to give up their suicidal plans because certain destruction is just the push of a button away.

11 posted on 04/24/2006 11:02:06 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
“imminent and certain” attack

Isn't that exactly what Iran has has been saying about Israel on a daily basis?

12 posted on 04/24/2006 11:02:09 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
The UN Security Council would never authorise it...

Only because they are too busy "authorizing" the bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, etc.

13 posted on 04/24/2006 11:02:38 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

You should have put in the Barf Alert!


14 posted on 04/24/2006 11:03:11 AM PDT by Redleg1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"People who support military action ask: how do we know that Iran isn't lying when it says that its uranium enrichment programme is intended only for civilian use?"

Indeed. And how do we know they are lying when they say Isreal should be wiped off the map?
15 posted on 04/24/2006 11:04:02 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Wow....did not take him long to digest his latest issue of Editor and Publisher!

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002343990


16 posted on 04/24/2006 11:05:24 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Europe had better take this issue seriously. If Iran attacks Israel or visa versa, nuclear fall out will fall all over Europe.
American can, if it has to, pull it's troops out and bring them home. This is more of a European problem than an American problem, and Bush should be pushing that point.
17 posted on 04/24/2006 11:06:16 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

.....yawn......More claptrap from the LT, liberal rag that it is. I wonder if they asked Red Ken for an endorsement?


18 posted on 04/24/2006 11:06:39 AM PDT by tgusa (Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Iran is a cancer that can only be cured with a high dose of radiation.


19 posted on 04/24/2006 11:06:46 AM PDT by BulletBobCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Does the Waaaaaaambulance serve English addresses? If so, the Times of London office needs it STAT.

"It would swell the insurgency in Iraq, multiply the numbers of “terrorists” and strengthen their determination to exact a terrible vengeance, especially on Israel."

Hardly likely. Once nuked, the Muslims would response would be "Oh, Esteemed ones, we agree with everything you have every said or done in your entire live!"

We should never forget "The Arab understands best power and vengeance".
20 posted on 04/24/2006 11:07:30 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

The Royal Geographical Society is going talk it over. Harumph, spot on, jolly good, yaaaas . . . .

That shouldn't take many more days/weeks/months than the Ents debating whether Merry and Pippin are, or are not, small Orcs.


21 posted on 04/24/2006 11:07:42 AM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
“The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated” will be debated tomorrow at the Royal Geographical Society

The Royal Geographical Society... how many embedded, covert agents do they have in Iran?

22 posted on 04/24/2006 11:08:02 AM PDT by johnny7 (ďNah, I ainít Jewish, I just donít dig on swine, thatís all.Ē)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Very confused indeed. Skidelsky an acclaimed biographer of Keynes and Moseley not a noted commentator on international affairs. I suppose as with Corelli Barnett it is another depressing example of how right wing liberals in the UK seem to be buying into the philo-Islamic mindset. That more than this article is the bad news.
23 posted on 04/24/2006 11:08:37 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

The Madness of allowing an irrational unstable government to assemble or buy nukes...


24 posted on 04/24/2006 11:08:43 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Robert Skidelsky is a pussy. Pure and simple.


25 posted on 04/24/2006 11:09:09 AM PDT by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Skidelsky sounds like he got his talking points right out of a box of skiddles....the man is a fool.

Israel has been caught short before.....

the next time muzzies will pay for it....BIG TIME....

26 posted on 04/24/2006 11:10:02 AM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN (Toon Town, Iran...........where reality is the real fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
The Royal Geographical Society is going talk it over. Harumph, spot on, jolly good, yaaaas

LOL. Exactly. Good thing the world has these fine folks to watch the fort for us, aye?

27 posted on 04/24/2006 11:11:41 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

If the stakes weren't so high, I would just say let Iran build (and probably use) nukes, just so we could hold it over the left forever.


28 posted on 04/24/2006 11:11:42 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

In actual fact prevailing winds would probably put much of the fallout over Iran. And of course the Palis would have no where to live. Or "I was a teenage mutant islamo-fascist."


29 posted on 04/24/2006 11:12:13 AM PDT by Humvee (Beliefs are more powerful than facts - Paulus Atreides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Has this fellow bothered to listen to the President and the war minister of Iran. We can't take them at their word? I have heard tell of a fellow named Hitler who spoke so wildly that most Englishmen assumed HE did not mean what he said. They were wrong.


30 posted on 04/24/2006 11:14:24 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
To the author: Nevel is that you? I thought you had died along time ago and been laid to rest next to Mrs. Chamberlain. I guess not. Well it's nice to know that you haven't changed a bit.
31 posted on 04/24/2006 11:15:23 AM PDT by reagandemo (The battle is near are you ready for the sacrifice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Humvee
"I was a teenage mutant islamo-fascist."

LOL. All their karma are belong to them.

32 posted on 04/24/2006 11:16:29 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
When will they learn?

Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Period.

We will bomb them, or Israel will. But Iran's capacity to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal will be denied them.

Articles like this is a matter of posturing. When the "tough slog" begins the MSM will point to this and say "see, we told ya so"!
33 posted on 04/24/2006 11:17:31 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Has this fellow bothered to listen to the President and the war minister of Iran. We can't take them at their word?

As crazy as it sounds, a great number of people think that people like this fellow in Iran only bluster because they are afraid of us. In other words, it's our fault that he's an a**. I'm stunned when I hear leftists criticize Bush for depending on the EU and the UN rather than having direct talks with Iran. Is it possible for them to be any more hypocritical?

34 posted on 04/24/2006 11:19:07 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
But by long-established customary law

Far be it for Iran to break the law.

35 posted on 04/24/2006 11:19:32 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
“The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated”

No it isn't, the President of their country said he already has 40 thousand troops embedded in western countries for homicide bombing if they get bombed.

Seems that when their President announces he already has 40 thousand troops inside countries to strike, that he made a declaration of war already.

What are 40k troops doing with murderous intentions in western countries to begin with? Shows his long term intent right there.

Makes him a righteous target for assassination as well IMO.

36 posted on 04/24/2006 11:20:08 AM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

"First, it needs to be trumpeted that a military strike now would be illegal under international law."

There is no international law. At least, until there is an elected legislative body that represents everyone on Earth and can pass binding global-scale law.

Until then, hippies should either stfu about "international law" or call the international cops to enforce it.


37 posted on 04/24/2006 11:21:45 AM PDT by Gefreiter ("Are you drinking 1% because you think you're fat?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
First, it needs to be trumpeted that a military strike now would be illegal under international law...

Well, that brought up the vomit. I can't read any more of this leftist clap-trap.
38 posted on 04/24/2006 11:21:59 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Someday we'll look back on all this and plow into a parked car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
If only the Iranians were as terrified as liberals.

LOL, that would make a great tagline.

39 posted on 04/24/2006 11:25:23 AM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

If you read this carefully, the guy has no answer.

North Korea developed its nuclear weapons while IAEA inspectors sat just down the road, watching carefully to make sure it didn't happen.

IAEA has done little but provide plausible deniability for regimes trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why we should be expected to play their game. Countries planning to develop nukes don't take them seriously, so why should we? Because inspections with teeth mean inspections backed by military force, while guys like Skidelsky imagine inspections as a substitute for military force.

Inspections with teeth would also require a mature intelligence capability, penetrating even the president's cabinet to know what the regime's hidden plans and motives are, if they are to go where ever they want when ever they want, this requires tremendous intel resources. We already know the sad condition of CIA, and its good to remember that it was considered scandalous when UN inspectors in Iraq were accused of having connections to CIA and MI6.

Of course they did, or ought to, where else would their intelligence come from?

We can't prevent a country from getting nukes indefinitely. We can act to prevent a terrorist regime from getting them, and living long enough to use them. India has them, and we don't care. Someday down the road, Iran will have them, and when they have sane people at the helm, we won't care either. We're not there yet.


40 posted on 04/24/2006 11:25:26 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot



The Madness of Bombing Iran

NOTICE THAT IRAN ISN'T MAD FOR WANTING TO BOMB THE WORLD.

As our leaders soften us up for a new war, here are the arguments we can’t afford to ignore....

PUT ON WADERS, IT'S ABOUT TO GET DEEP...

THERE IS no doubt that Western opinion is being softened up for a US or Israeli strike against the Iranian centrifuges at Natanz.

MOST OF THE SOURCES I'M READING ARE ALREADY ENGAGED IN A PR WAR TO CUT OFF ANY ACTION AGAINST IRAN.

“Can anyone within range of Iran’s missiles feel safe?”, screams a full-page advertisement in the International Herald Tribune, displaying a map of the Eurasian land mass with Iran at its centre.

IRAN HAS PROMISED TO USE THEIR WEAPONS SO IT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

As part of the softening-up come the justifications, as false as the ones that preceded the Iraq war, but more disgraceful second time round. Here are the counter-arguments.

IRAQ HAD WMDS DUMBA$$.

First, it needs to be trumpeted that a military strike now would be illegal under international law.

OH BUT BUILDING WMDS/NUKES ISN'T?

The UN Security Council would never authorise it, since Iran has not breached the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that allows every signatory to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use.

COURSE A LOT OF NATIONS ON THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL ARE PROFITING FROM SELLING IRAN THE MATERIALS IT NEEDS. AGAIN I REPEAT, IRAN HAS PROMISED TO NUKE ISRAEL - HOW YOU CONSIDER THAT A "PEACEFUL" PURSUIT IS BEYOND ME.

However, the hawks no longer even talk about the need to get Security Council approval — this is the measure of the damage to international law that Bush and Blair have inflicted.

WHAT DO WE NEED APPROVAL FOR? RIGHT NOW THE UN IS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT BODIES ON THE PLANET.

The United States (or Israel) would claim it was acting in self-defence. But by long-established customary law a pre-emptive strike is justified only to defend against an “imminent and certain” attack. True enough, what happens tomorrow is never certain, but if another country’s troops start massing at one’s frontier that would be pretty good evidence of hostile intention. To claim the right of self-defence against a threat that may or may not emerge in five years’ time is to claim the right to wage aggressive war whenever one chooses. This was one of the two grounds on which Nazi leaders were convicted and executed at Nuremberg.

...HAVE YOU READ *ANY* OF THE NEWS COMING OUT OF IRAN RIGHT NOW? IF YOU HAD IT WOULD *SCARE* YOU.

LET ME GUESS, YOU'RE ANOTHER LEFTIST BUTTHEAD THAT THINKS WE NEED TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE "IN FIVE YEARS IT WILL BE TOO LATE." WELL IF IRAN BUILDS A NUCLEAR WEAPON IT WILL BE TOO LATE. IRAN HAS TIES TO TERRORIST GROUPS AND WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THEM MATERIALS AND KNOWLEDGE ON HOW TO BUILD A BOMB.

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, has recently been arguing that the right of pre-emption should be turned into the right of prevention, “rather than waiting for the next threat to come along”. If one happened to “learn” that a threat was being developed, would it not be one’s duty to zap it before it became actual?

THE ANSWER IS "YES." A FEW DEAD NOW WILL BEAT WORLD DEVASTATION IN FIVE YEARS.

The answer is “no”. The more “potential” the threat, the less transparent it will be, the more flawed one's intelligence, and the more scope leaders will have to manipulate public opinion.

AN ABSURD STATEMENT.

If Iraq taught us anything it should have been this. Tony Blair at first stuck to the accepted justification for a pre-emptive strike by claiming that Iraq was an immediate threat (the notorious “45 minutes”).

IF IRAQ TAUGHT US ANYTHING IT'S THAT THE COMMUNISTS, SOCIALISTS AND MEDIA OUTLETS WORLDWIDE HATE THE WEST AND EVERYTHING THE WEST STANDS FOR: LIKE FREEDOM AND PEACE.

When that was revealed as phoney, he fell back on the argument that Iraq “would have” acquired a WMD capability had we not overthrown Saddam Hussein. Such arguments allow unscrupulous leaders to make war on a whim.

I REPEAT: SADDAM *HAD* WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I GUESS SINCE HE DIDN'T USE THEM ON YOU YOU CAN ACT LIKE IT'S TRIVIAL.

To return from Mr Reid’s science fiction to earth: the technology of making nuclear weapons is not obscure. The Iranians claim to have enriched uranium to the “3.5 per cent level”. This is enough to use as nuclear fuel, but nowhere near enough for nuclear weapons.

BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THE IRANS ARE COMPLETELY TRUSTWORTHY AND ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH.

That requires up to 90 per cent enrichment, with 50 to 100 kilograms of it to make a single bomb. The Iranians say they have 164 centrifuges. But thousands would be needed to get a significant amount of weapons grade uranium. Experts say it would take five years or more to produce an atomic bomb from domestic processes.

THE TRUTH IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE - BUT THEY ARE PROMISING TO STRIKE OUT AT EVERYONE AGAINS THEM.

The biggest danger of nuclear proliferation is not that rogue states will learn how to enrich uranium enough to build nuclear weapons but that already enriched uranium stocks will leak out to terrorist groups.

FUNNY I THOUGHT THE BIGGEST DANGER WAS THAT THE US AND ENGLAND HAD THEM.

A terrorist group that obtained 50kg of highly enriched uranium would probably be able to make a nuclear device. But it could make it anywhere — in a garage in London, for instance. The answer to this is not to bomb Iraq, but to reduce such stockpiles (mainly in Russia and the United States) to a minimum, and make sure they are under iron control.

WE CAN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM BEING MURDERED EITHER, SO LET'S JUST LEGALIZE IT AND GIVE UP EVEN TRYING.

People who support military action ask: how do we know that Iran isn't lying when it says that its uranium enrichment programme is intended only for civilian use?

...BECAUSE THE IRANIANS HAVE SAID THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE A BOMB. THEY'VE ASSERTED IT IS THEIR "RIGHT".

Surely, this is a clear case for invoking the precautionary principle: the risk may be slight but the consequences of ignoring it may be catastrophic. But no one is arguing that the risk should be ignored.

EXCEPT ME, THE MEDIA, HOLLYWOOD, DEMOCRATS, THE COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST PARTY, MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS...

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty now also allows for intrusive inspections.

UH HUH, RIGHT. AND WHEN THE IRANIANS STALL? WHEN THE IRANIANS REFUSE TO LET US SEE THEIR STUFF? WHEN THE IRANIANS REFUSE TO SHOW US THEIR SECRET SITES? WHAT DO WE DO THEN?

Hans Blix has written: “If you want a control system that gives a maximum of assurance, you can . . . require that inspectors have the right to go almost anywhere, any time, and demand any kind of documents.”

HANS BLIX? THIS GUY COULDN'T FIND AN ELEPHANT AT THE ZOO IF HE HAD A MAP.

Iran has accepted this protocol and operating under it the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence that it is developing a weapons programme.

IRAN IS USING STALL TACTICS THAT APPEAL TO SIMPLISTIC PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF - AND LOOK, IT'S WORKING.

However, the protocol could be strengthened for states such as Iran whose leaders make Hitlerian pronouncements.

HITLERIAN? IRAN HAS DENIED THE HOLOCAUST. IRAN HAS TALKED OF EXTERMINATING THE JEWS. HOW MUCH MORE HITLERIAN CAN YOU GET?

Given that it is possible, though difficult, to put in place a series of checks on Iran's nuclear ambitions, our leaders need to weigh very carefully the equivocal comfort that a so-called preventive strike may buy against the massive costs of mounting one. It is as certain as it can be that a strike against Iran would inflame Muslim hatred throughout the Middle East and beyond.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THOSE MUSLIMS ARE GOING TO DO? BURN AMERICAN FLAGS? USE TERROR TACTICS AGAINST THE WEST? BOMB SUBWAYS? HIJACK PLANES? FLY MAJOR AIRLINERS INTO SKY SCRAPERS? THEY'RE DOING THIS STUFF ALREADY DIP$HIT!

It would interrupt oil supplies and disorganise the world economy.

GAS PRICES ARE GOING UP WORLDWIDE. ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE TIED OUR SURVIVAL TO THESE PEOPLE BY DENYING US THE CHANCE TO FIND OUR OWN SUPPLIES.

It would swell the insurgency in Iraq, multiply the numbers of “terrorists” and strengthen their determination to exact a terrible vengeance, especially on Israel.

IS YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND OR JUST UP YOUR A$$???

It would be against every counsel of prudent statesmanship. The danger is that we will drift into war because we lack the will and imagination to create institutions to make peace safe.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR. WE DIDN'T DECLARE IT, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT AND WE DIDN'T START IT.

“The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated” will be debated tomorrow at the Royal Geographical Society in one of a series of Times debates. www.intelligencesquared.com

THIS GUY IS GROSSLY OVERPAID. IT'S THE BELIEFS OF NO NOTHINGS LIKE THIS THAT HAVE US IN THE QUAGMIRE THAT WE ARE IN NOW. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO RULE THE DAY.


41 posted on 04/24/2006 11:25:35 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

"But it could make it anywhere — in a garage in London, for instance."

Oh please. Unless they are writing about a dirty bomb this is just a little bit of an overstatement.


42 posted on 04/24/2006 11:26:46 AM PDT by Felis_irritable
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
No it isn't, the President of their country said he already has 40 thousand troops embedded in western countries for homicide bombing if they get bombed.

How sweet. We'll even give then amnesty if they've worked here for 5 years, so they can stay until they're needed.
"Praise Allah for Americas stupidity."

43 posted on 04/24/2006 11:30:59 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Is there any evidence that a liberal would accept as an "imminent threat"?


44 posted on 04/24/2006 11:31:44 AM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Notice we're going after countries who have either threatened to or actually replaced the US dollar as foreign exchange currency for a barrel of oil. I wonder if something else is up, say the imminent collapse of the US dollar?

Keep printing, third world status, here we come.
45 posted on 04/24/2006 11:31:46 AM PDT by Rockitz (This isn't rocket science- Follow the money and you'll find the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Meanwhile we have a limitation on educated people coming here a year as immigrants to only 60k or so.

Democrats want all the undereducated here because they will all access at some point the welfare system and vote Democrat.

Never saw a bigger lose lose for the Republicans the way they are handling this.

There are Iranian cells here on our lands, by chance I came across information on one and passed it on. I believe it made the papers as well.

The Iranians are very dangerous.
Their leadership on all sides are nuts.
46 posted on 04/24/2006 11:36:34 AM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
First, it needs to be trumpeted that a military strike now would be illegal under international law

BFD.

47 posted on 04/24/2006 11:37:36 AM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edpc

there is more sense and facts on freerepublic than in all of congress and state legislatures combined.


48 posted on 04/24/2006 11:38:22 AM PDT by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
I wonder if something else is up, say the imminent collapse of the US dollar?

Soros, a far left wing communist and head of the ANSWER group, plays the money market. If American currency takes a nose dive, he rakes in billions. After that, he'll drop out of the market, America will be a dependent country, and he'll be on a sunny beach somewhere sipping champaign and celebrating Americas defeat.
The liberals and dependent democrats will be starving to death, but their usefulness will have come to an end. They'll no longer be necessary.

49 posted on 04/24/2006 11:41:22 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
there is no such thing as international law

Correctamundo!

Law is an attribute of sovereignty. No sovereign, no law.

With regard to the United States, its citizens and other persons subject to its jurisdiction, the People of the United States are sovereign, and they have delegated ALL judicial powers to a Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time establish. ALL of our legislative authority is vested in a Congress, which is subject to our control through periodic elections.

In THIS blessed land, nothing which has not been passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President is a law, especially not anything emanating from the slab on the East River.

They can take their phony international "law" and shove it.

50 posted on 04/24/2006 11:43:13 AM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson