Iran still defiant as nuclear deadline expires

[carib]

Iran vowed on Wednesday to press on with its nuclear fuel program, ignoring a U.N. deadline to freeze uranium enrichment or face broader sanctions.


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/21/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

[01Snake]

But, but, we have them so why cant they?? :rolleyes

[carib]

But, but, we have them so why cant they?? :rolleyes


100% agree with you

[Oh, Gee!!]

oh, joy...another war.

[Nbadan]

All these people who are thinking that we, or the Israelis, can just bomb Iranian nuclear targets and that will be it are not living in the real world. we will be forced to invade parts of Iran.

[BIG IRISH]

Cheney Hints at Possible Strike on Iran
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has hinted military action against Iran is possible to keep Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In an interview with The Weekend Australian newspaper, Cheney said he had no doubt Iran is trying to enrich uranium to produce nuclear weapons.

He said he was pretty close to agreement with U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.

Cheney said nuclear terrorism is the greatest threat facing the world and, while the U.S. does not believe Iran possesses nuclear weapons yet, you get various estimates on the point of no return.

Is it when they possess weapons or does it come sooner, when they have mastered the technology but, perhaps, not yet produced fissile material for weapons? he asked.

Cheney, on a three-day visit to Australia, held talks with Australian Premier John Howard Saturday on the question of Australia's commitment in Iraq and whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Earlier, in an address to the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, Cheney warned of the dangers of pulling out of Iraq before Iraqis can properly defend themselves against terrorism.

Many jihadists would head for Afghanistan and others would undermine moderate governments in the Middle East, while other terrorist groups sought victims on other continents, he said.

We have a duty to stand in their way, Cheney said.

:pctoss




http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/851984/cheney_hints_at_possible_strike_on_iran/index.html

[sabar]

But, but, we have them so why cant they?? :rolleyes

Only 9 countries in the world have nuclear weapons, it'd be nice to make it 0 one day. Increasing the number doesn't help. Pakistan/India/NK should never have gotten nukes. The more middle eastern countries that get them, the closer we get to a nuclear winter.

16 countries have abandoned nuclear weapons programs and 4 countries have eliminated their stockpiles, so it's not like progress isn't being made.

My saying is, if you parade your missiles down the streets, you can't be trusted with them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Agni-II_missile_%28Republic_Day_Parade_2004%29.jpeg/800px-Agni-II_missile_%28Republic_Day_Parade_2004%29.jpeg

[exstatic]

Many jihadists would head for Afghanistan and others would undermine moderate governments in the Middle East, while other terrorist groups sought victims on other continents, he said.
That's either a bald lie or another complete misunderstanding of regional politics. With this administration, it's hard to tell. If we pull out, al qaeda (a Sunni organization) turns their attention to the Madhi Army and the vast Shi'ite majority without missing a beat. They'll be totally occupied for years fighting a domestic insurgency in Iraq.

[boutons_]

The M/E sounds like Europe before WWI, when all the countries were armed to teeth, just waiting for a trigger.

==============

February 23, 2007

Arab States, Wary of Iran, Add to Their Arsenals but Still Lean on the U.S.

By HASSAN M. FATTAH

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 22 — As fears grow over the escalating confrontation between Iran and the West, Arab states across the Persian Gulf have begun a rare show of muscle flexing, publicly advertising a shopping spree for new weapons and openly discussing their security concerns.

Typically secretive, the gulf nations have long planned upgrades to their armed forces, but now are speaking openly about them. American military officials say the countries, normally prone to squabbling, have also increased their military cooperation and opened lines of communication to the American military here.

Patriot missile batteries capable of striking down ballistic missiles have been readied in several gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, analysts say, and increasingly, the states have sought to emphasize their unanimity against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There has always been an acknowledgment of the threat in the region, but the volume of the debate has now risen,” said one United Arab Emirates official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject. “Now the message is there’s a dialogue going on with Iran, but that doesn’t mean I don’t intend to defend myself.”

The Persian Gulf monarchies and sheikdoms, mostly small and vulnerable, have long relied on the United States to protect them. The United States Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain; the United States Central Command is based in nearby Qatar; and the Navy has long relied on docking facilities in the United Arab Emirates, which has one of the region’s deepest water ports at Jebel Ali.

The United States, too, has begun a significant expansion of forces in the gulf, with a second United States aircraft carrier battle group led by the John C. Stennis now in the Persian Gulf and with minesweeping ships.

The expansion has helped calm fears among gulf governments that the United States could pull out of the region in the future, even as it has raised concerns about a potential American confrontation with Iran, accidental or intentional.

As tensions with Iran rise, many gulf countries have come to see themselves as the likely first targets of an Iranian attack. Some have grown more concerned that the United States may be overstretched militarily, many analysts say, while almost all the monarchies, flush with cash as a result of high oil prices, have sought to build a military deterrent of their own.

“The message is first, ‘U.S., stay involved here,’ and second, ‘Iran, we will maintain a technological edge no matter what,’ ” said Emile el-Hokayem, research fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research center based in Washington. “They are trying to reinforce the credibility of the threat of force.”

Military officials from throughout the region descended this week on the Idex military trade fair, a semiannual event that has become the region’s largest arms market, drawing nearly 900 weapons makers from around the world. They came ready to update their military capacities and air and naval defenses. They also came armed with a veiled message of resolve.

“We believe there is a need for power to protect peace, and strong people with the capability to respond are the real protectors of peace,” said Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, at the exposition. “That is why we are keen to maintain the efficiency of our armed forces.”

The Persian Gulf has been a lucrative market for arms. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman spend up to 10 percent of their gross domestic product on the military, amounting to nearly $21 billion, $4 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively, estimates John Kenkel, senior director of Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services.

If they follow through on the deals announced recently, it is estimated that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia will spend up to $60 billion this year. The biggest buyer in 2006, according to the defense industry journal Defense News, was Saudi Arabia, which has agreed to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets for $11 billion. It also has a $400 million deal to upgrade 12 Apache AH-64A helicopters to the Longbow standard. The kingdom also reportedly plans to acquire cruise missiles, attack helicopters and tanks, all for a total of $50 billion.

Kuwait reportedly bought 24 Apache Longbow helicopters, while the United Arab Emirates has continued to take delivery of 80 F-16 Block 60 fighters, with plans to buy air tankers, missile defense batteries and airborne early warning systems. Bahrain ordered nine UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in an estimated $252 million deal, while Oman reportedly bought 30 antitank rocket launchers in a $48 million purchase and is planning a naval overhaul.

“It is a message to enemies that ‘We are taking defense seriously,’ ” Mr. Kenkel said, emphasizing that the new arms were for deterrence.

“If the U.S. ever does pull back, these countries in the gulf have realized, they may have to fend for themselves,” Mr. Kenkel said. “As the Boy Scouts say, always be prepared.”

The most marked change is in the public nature of the acquisitions, which previously would have been kept secret, many analysts here said, itself a form of deterrence.

“They have been doing these kinds of purchases since the ’90s,” said Marwan Lahoud, chief executive of the European missile maker MBDA. “What has changed is they are stating it publicly. The other side is making pronouncements so they have to as well,” he said, speaking of Iran’s recent announcements about its weapons capacity.

Senior United States military officials say gulf countries have become more nervous as Iran has conducted naval maneuvers, especially near the Straits of Hormuz, the main artery through which two-fifths of the world’s oil reaches markets.

“A year ago you could have characterized the interaction with the Iranians as professional,” said Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, departing commander of the Fifth Fleet. “What’s different today has been the number and amount of exercises and the proximity of those exercises to the Straits of Hormuz themselves.”

The exercises were among the reasons for the expansion of Navy forces in the region, he said, but have also raised alarm about the potential for accidents to lead to an unintended war.

Admiral Walsh said that American warships remained in international waters, and that Iranian and American ships kept close watch on one another. Some critics of the Bush administration have alleged that the increased military presence in the gulf risks igniting a conflict.

Admiral Walsh said the increased American presence was aimed at o reassuring gulf states that the United States remained committed to their security, but also welcomed their efforts to build deterrence.

“We have found that we need to be physically present to prevent such armed behavior,” he said of the Iranian maneuvers. “We’re mindful we’re not giving up any water, but also being careful not to take a provocative stance.”

==============

dickhead is the will be the Dr. Strangelove who starts the conflagration.

[01Snake]

But, but, we have them so why cant they?? :rolleyes


If you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic. I SURE AS HELL don't want Iran or any other nutcase country to acquire nukes!

[01Snake]

Only 9 countries in the world have nuclear weapons, it'd be nice to make it 0 one day. Increasing the number doesn't help. Pakistan/India/NK should never have gotten nukes. The more middle eastern countries that get them, the closer we get to a nuclear winter.

16 countries have abandoned nuclear weapons programs and 4 countries have eliminated their stockpiles, so it's not like progress isn't being made.

My saying is, if you parade your missiles down the streets, you can't be trusted with them.



Agree with you 1000000%

I was simply acting like many idiots that use the retort "if we (USA) can have them, why can't other countries have them". That has to be the stupidest mindset I've ever heard. Anyone that thinks a country like Iran is seeking nuclear power and not weapons is an idiot. Once they have them, get ready for Iran to make NK's saber-rattling look like childs play.

[Yonivore]

Only 9 countries in the world have nuclear weapons, it'd be nice to make it 0 one day. Increasing the number doesn't help. Pakistan/India/NK should never have gotten nukes. The more middle eastern countries that get them, the closer we get to a nuclear winter.
I agree.


16 countries have abandoned nuclear weapons programs and 4 countries have eliminated their stockpiles, so it's not like progress isn't being made.
I dare to add that it is doubtful most, if not all, of those would have abandoned their programs if not for the reassurance (or threat) our program provides.

As those beer guys say; "Brilliant!"


My saying is, if you parade your missiles down the streets, you can't be trusted with them.
Well put.

[boutons_]

how many missile parades have led to missile barrages?

[Yonivore]

how many missile parades have led to missile barrages?
Iraq used to parade them...then launch them.

[boutons_]

Iraq's Army was destroyed in the Gulf War. As Saddam showed in his attacks Iran and Kuweit, he was an incompetent, disastrous commander-in-chief (dubya is right there with him).

A Dr.Strangelove/AEI/PNAC/neo-cunt nutcase pre-emptive strike on Iran would be a disaster, inflaming the M/E and all (moderate) Muslims against the US, making the US even less secure.

Iran knows the US has superior firepower and knows that an Iranian first strike would be followed by a much worse US strike on Iran. dubya's and dickhead's continued, repeated threatening and baiting of Iran is stupid, reckless, equals their total geo-political/military fuckup in Iraq.

But you non-enlisting fake-badass Macho Men adore that kind of bullying and posturing.

[Yonivore]

Iraq's Army was destroyed in the Gulf War. As Saddam showed in his attacks Iran and Kuweit, he was an incompetent, disastrous commander-in-chief (dubya is right there with him).

A Dr.Strangelove/AEI/PNAC/neo-cunt nutcase pre-emptive strike on Iran would be a disaster, inflaming the M/E and all (moderate) Muslims against the US, making the US even less secure.

Iran knows the US has superior firepower and knows that an Iranian first strike would be followed by a much worse US strike on Iran. dubya's and dickhead's continued, repeated threatening and baiting of Iran is stupid, reckless, equals their total geo-political/military fuckup in Iraq.

But you non-enlisting fake-badass Macho Men adore that kind of bullying and posturing.
Roll all that hot-keyed nonsense up with nutjob Ahmadenijad's 12th Imam religious fervor and, you just may have an Iranian leader that doesn't give a fuck about being annihilated...so long as they wipe Israel off the map first.

[boutons_]

yoni's reads a demagogue's fucked up mind with the same credibilty as WMD intel. Sunni Saddam bluffed dubya while primarily aiming his bluff at arch-enemy Shiite Iran.

Ahmadenijad is not the only power in Iran. And has recently lost power and influence in "elections". Of course, if dubya and dickhead hadn't fucked up so badly in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. I'm sure Iran knows th US Air Force can and will rain down shock-n-awe on Tehran as well as it did on Bagdad, even with the Army and Marines pinned down uselessly, wastefully in Iraq.

Furthermore, I really doubt Iran will nuke Israel since Israel has plenty of sacred Islamic shrines.

[Yonivore]

yoni's reads a demagogue's fucked up mind with the same credibilty as WMD intel. Sunni Saddam bluffed dubya while primarily aiming his bluff at arch-enemy Shiite Iran.

Ahmadenijad is not the only power in Iran. And has recently lost power and influence in "elections". Of course, if dubya and dickhead hadn't fucked up so badly in Iraq, Iran wouldn't be so emboldened. I'm sure Iran knows th US Air Force can and will rain down shock-n-awe on Tehran as well as it did on Bagdad, even with the Army and Marines pinned down uselessly, wastefully in Iraq.

Furthermore, I really doubt Iran will nuke Israel since Israel has plenty of sacred Islamic shrines.
I'm sorry, it's just really hard to take you seriously...

[ChumpDumper]

When do we invade?

Oh, that's right. We can't.

[Yonivore]

When do we invade?

Oh, that's right. We can't.
What would be the purpose of an invasion?

[ChumpDumper]

What would be the purpose of an invasion?You are seriously asking this question five years after the invasion of Iraq?

[Yonivore]

You are seriously asking this question five years after the invasion of Iraq?
Sure, why would we need to invade Iran?

I think the Iranians, with a few well placed cruise missiles, would probably liberate themselves from the mad Mullahs and Ahmadinejad. It appears there is some movement in that area already.

I think all we'll need to do is neutralize their command and control structure and take out the nuclear sites.

[disclaimer: this is the opinion of Yonivore and in no way attempts to proclaim any planned or imminent military plan or foreign policy initiative on the part of the Bush administration. And, for the record, I'm not saying this is how things will go. Oh, and Master Baiter, please include this disclaimer whenever you use this post to call me liar sometime in the future].

[ChumpDumper]

I think the Iranians, with a few well placed cruise missiles, would probably liberate themselves from the mad Mullahs and Ahmadinejad. It appears there is some movement in that area already.How Clintonian of you.
I think all we'll need to do is neutralize their command and control structure and take out the nuclear sites.How many targets does that make?

And finally, why would that same strategy not have worked in Iraq five years ago?

[Yonivore]

How Clintonian of you.
I'm not talking about empty tents in the desert. I'd throw in assassination of key military and scientific assets as well as the mad Mullahs and Ahmadinejad, to boot.


How many targets does that make?
I don't know. But, I'll bet you there are planners at the Pentagon that do and have the coordinates ready to go.


And finally, why would that same strategy not have worked in Iraq five years ago?
I don't know that it wouldn't have. But, I imagine having a hostile Iran and Syria on the borders kind of precluded just creating a vaccuum in Iraq. This isn't the case with Iran. Also, there appears to be a ready, willing, and able insurgency ready to take off in Iran if they just get a few breaks.

I'd say a dead president, several key mullahs, and a decimated military infrastructure just might be the tipping point.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not talking about empty tents in the desert. I'd throw in assassination of key military and scientific assets as well as the mad Mullahs and Ahmadinejad, to boot.Ah, now we're talking. You want to violate the US law regarding political assassinations. Not surprising in the least.
I don't know. But, I'll bet you there are planners at the Pentagon that do and have the coordinates ready to go.That's not a good answer. How many targets? How long will it take to hit them all? What if an American pilot is shot down in Iran?
I don't know that it wouldn't have.Fantastic.
But, I imagine having a hostile Iran and Syria on the borders kind of precluded just creating a vaccuum in Iraq.As opposed to just turning over the country to Iran's religious brothers. I see the advantage there.
I'd say a dead president, several key mullahs, and a decimated military infrastructure just might be the tipping point.Of what? Another civil war?

[Bob Lanier]

My saying is, if you parade your missiles down the streets, you can't be trusted with them.
Damn, Americans really do dislike Indians.