PDA

View Full Version : Charles Krauthammer On Iran and Nukes..


WilliamTheIrish
07-25-2004, 01:08 PM
Strike Before The Nukes Get Hot (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/214698p-184881c.html)

Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons now being drawn from the 9/11 report is that Iran was the real threat. The Iraq War critics have a new line of attack: We should have done Iran instead.
Well, of course Iran is a threat. But how exactly would the critics have "done" Iran? Iran is a serious country with a serious army. Can you imagine the Iraq War critics actually supporting war with Iran?

If not war, what then? The Bush administration, having decided that invading one axis-of-evil country was about as much as the country can bear, has gone multilateral on Iran. Washington delegated the issue to a committee of three - the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany - that has been meeting with the Iranians to get them to shut down their nuclear program.

The result? They have been led by the nose. Time is of the essence, and the runaround that the Tehran Three have gotten from the mullahs has meant that we have lost at least nine months in doing anything to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran instead of Iraq? The Iraq critics would have done nothing about either country. There would today be two major Islamic countries sitting on an ocean of oil, supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction - instead of one.

Two years ago, there were five countries supporting terror and pursuing WMDs - two junior-leaguers, Libya and Syria, and the axis-of-evil varsity: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The Bush administration has just eliminated two: Iraq, by direct military means, and Libya, by example and intimidation.

Syria is weak and deterred by Israel. North Korea, having gone nuclear, is untouchable. That leaves Iran. There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities.

The country should be ripe for revolution. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike.

Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away - in Iraq.
====================================================

Frankie, if you catch this thread I'd be interested in your take on this. I read Krauthammer pretty often but this strikes me as a more aggressive piece than he normally writes.

How close are the Iranians to becoming fully loaded?

I would have to presume that Israel would have to be the aggressor and pull the trigger the minute any fuel rods are delivered. Since the UN and the Frogs would rather dance to Muslim music than care what happens to Americans.

Bowser
07-25-2004, 01:18 PM
So do you think Iraq was used as a staging ground? It would appear so, if this article is correct.

SNR
07-25-2004, 02:04 PM
Umm, WMDs weren't the main reason we went to Iraq :shake:

memyselfI
07-25-2004, 02:29 PM
Strike Before The Nukes Get Hot (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/214698p-184881c.html)


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

Frankie, if you catch this thread I'd be interested in your take on this. I read Krauthammer pretty often but this strikes me as a more aggressive piece than he normally writes.

How close are the Iranians to becoming fully loaded?

I would have to presume that Israel would have to be the aggressor and pull the trigger the minute any fuel rods are delivered. Since the UN and the Frogs would rather dance to Muslim music than care what happens to Americans.

Iran will not rollover like Iraq did...and we are still there battling for control. If Israel tries to take down Iran I think WWIII won't be far behind.

WilliamTheIrish
07-25-2004, 02:48 PM
Iran will not rollover like Iraq did...and we are still there battling for control. If Israel tries to take down Iran I think WWIII won't be far behind.

I get confused on the internal status of Iran. OTOH I hear that the population wants the mullahs out and want to live a freer existence, yet on the other the population seems perfectly satisfied with the staus quo.

WilliamTheIrish
07-25-2004, 03:32 PM
This is from my favorite site on what the current state of affairs seems to be in Iran.
I can't imagine that the world will stand by idly for much longer with this kind of rhetoric being spouted by these azzhats.

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

Iran threatens an apocalypse

Bristol Press - Editorial
Jul 23, 2004

Iran may or may not be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. What is certain is that it has lied about its activities.

In response to concerns from the United States and Europe, Iranian leaders and newspapers have taken an apocalyptic tone.

Ali Khamenei, Iranís leader, said in a July 5 speech, "If someone harms our people ..we will endanger his interests everywhere in the world."

A leader of the Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Yadollah Javani, wrote in an Iranian newspaper that "today we have in our possession long-range smart missiles which can reach many of the interests and vital resources of the Americans and of the Zionist regime in our region."

The translations are from MEMRI, which monitors Middle East media. It has also noted widespread reports in the Iranian press of the recruitment of suicide bombers for missions in Iraq, and Iranís resumption of work on missiles that can strike Europe and the United States.

The Iranian words echo those of the Taliban before Sept. 11. They cannot be ignored, although there is hope that diplomacy and political moderation will prevail in Iran.

For the White House to judge which threats to act on and which to ignore is immensely difficult. Hindsight will always be too late.

From the New Haven Register, a Journal Register Company newspaper.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_7259.shtml

the Talking Can
07-25-2004, 04:01 PM
I really can't believe we would invade Iran....jesus, our foreign policy makers are bankrupt, I encounter more nuance playing Pong.

Hell, why not! Lets invade another country...we got so many extra troops laying around, and Afghanistan is now peaceful and Osama is caught...I bet Bush knows less about Iran than he did about Iraq- which was nothing. (but let me guess, this time he "really" means it...he's got the hot info from his best bud and reliable insider, Ahhhhhhkmed Chalabi...."For $200, this convicted criminal and double agent was a personal guest at the State of the Union Speech of this U.S. President?"....."Uh, Alex, who is Jimmy Carter?")

Just give those Iranian baby boomers some time. And please, someone, anyone, step up to the mike and say, "For $100 dollars, the terrorists came from this middle eastern monarchy"......"Uh, Alex, what is 'Australia'?"

WilliamTheIrish
07-25-2004, 05:09 PM
I really can't believe we would invade Iran....jesus, our foreign policy makers are bankrupt, I encounter more nuance playing Pong....

.. And Halliburton is stretched a little thin for a second invasion. :)

Frankie
07-25-2004, 11:52 PM
Irish,

I just saw this thread. It's almost 1:00 am and my brain went night night an hour ago. I'll pitch in with a clearer mind hopefully tomorrow.

Taco John
07-26-2004, 12:28 AM
That's a cool last name... Krauthammer...

Joe Seahawk
07-26-2004, 12:39 AM
That's a cool last name... Krauthammer...

And he's Jewish too.. :)

FloridaChief
07-26-2004, 12:44 AM
That's a cool last name... Krauthammer...

He's publishing under his porn non de plume again. Sad...

Taco John
07-26-2004, 01:50 AM
And he's Jewish too.. :)



Oh no way!

alanm
07-26-2004, 02:20 AM
Iran will not rollover like Iraq did...and we are still there battling for control. If Israel tries to take down Iran I think WWIII won't be far behind.BS. Iran would crumple about as fast as Iraq. Only they would take more casualties. The US could hit them in a 3 pronged attack. If you think about it we have Iran surrounded on 3 sides. They have no place to run except the former Soviet Republics or Pakistan. Denise whether you believe it or not this is one of the primary reasons for being in Iraq. Iran is the main goal in fighting terrorism. Their days are numbered. Payback for all the trouble they've caused over the years and the Hostage crisis in 1979 will be paid in full. Payback will be a MoFo for Iran.

Frankie
07-26-2004, 06:08 PM
BS. Iran would crumple about as fast as Iraq. Only they would take more casualties. The US could hit them in a 3 pronged attack. If you think about it we have Iran surrounded on 3 sides. They have no place to run except the former Soviet Republics or Pakistan. Denise whether you believe it or not this is one of the primary reasons for being in Iraq. Iran is the main goal in fighting terrorism. Their days are numbered. Payback for all the trouble they've caused over the years and the Hostage crisis in 1979 will be paid in full. Payback will be a MoFo for Iran.

:shake:

WilliamTheIrish
07-26-2004, 06:49 PM
Irish,

I just saw this thread. It's almost 1:00 am and my brain went night night an hour ago. I'll pitch in with a clearer mind hopefully tomorrow.

Chime in when ready, Frankie. Always interested in a your thoughts on this matter.

Frankie
07-26-2004, 06:52 PM
I get confused on the internal status of Iran. OTOH I hear that the population wants the mullahs out and want to live a freer existence, yet on the other the population seems perfectly satisfied with the staus quo.
Here's my 2cents: It is not that Iranians are necessarily satisfied with the status quo. The majority are extremely tired of the staus quo. However the post WW2 history between the U.S. and Iran has left a bad taste and a deep suspision into most Iranians. I think most Iranians find themselves wanting to trust the U.S. but unable to do it. Hence the calls for American assistance. Fair or not, I don't know. But it's a fact. I really think how the U.S. handles Iran hereon out goes a long way in wether Iran will be a lifelong partner or adversary on the popular level. An Iraq-like military attack will be seen just as another U.S. attempt to forcibly shape the future of the country without the consent of the populace. Patriotism runs deep among Iranians due to a sense of pride and identity that 25 centuries of history has forged. I'm afraid that may be a strong uniting factor (ala Iran-Iraq war) that would make a military intervention unpopular. I think the correct solution to the Iran problem will be through diplomacy and with a sincere American posture that the next Iran will enjoy fairness and the American respect of her independence. How? I'm not sure yet. It may take long.

Frankie
07-26-2004, 06:56 PM
Irish,

I'm invited to dinner. I have to go in a few minutes. But I'll revisit this thread either late tonight or in the morning. I'll discuss this with other Iranians and ex-Iranians there and ask for their take.

WilliamTheIrish
07-26-2004, 07:21 PM
Thanks Frankie.

WilliamTheIrish
09-25-2004, 05:11 PM
Frankie, I thought I'd bump this thread rather than create another.

I have found a good article that seemed related to the thread. With the mullahs hanging on to power and the fact that they desire nukes (I don't think I'm exagerating on that point but, if so, you can counter it I'm certain) this article talks about helping along the revolution. Letting it gain it own momentum etc.

This one from the Heritage Foundation was pretty good. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm298.cfm)

It relates because ofThis article from the Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/25/2004&Cat=4&Num=026) in which Kharrazi states that Iran is persuing a reactor for civil purposes. He then goes on to describe what a '"Powerful Iran" would do if the facility were bombed.

Since you have relatives or contacts in the area I'd appreciate your take on this stuff every few months or so since Iran is going to be in the news a lot while the reactor goes on line.

How do native Iranians feel about the possibility of the mullahs having weapons grade plutonium? Or even the ability to sell it to AQ types?

It does put the Iranian population at risk does it not?

Calcountry
09-25-2004, 05:56 PM
Strike Before The Nukes Get Hot (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/214698p-184881c.html)

Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons now being drawn from the 9/11 report is that Iran was the real threat. The Iraq War critics have a new line of attack: We should have done Iran instead.
Well, of course Iran is a threat. But how exactly would the critics have "done" Iran? Iran is a serious country with a serious army. Can you imagine the Iraq War critics actually supporting war with Iran?

If not war, what then? The Bush administration, having decided that invading one axis-of-evil country was about as much as the country can bear, has gone multilateral on Iran. Washington delegated the issue to a committee of three - the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany - that has been meeting with the Iranians to get them to shut down their nuclear program.

The result? They have been led by the nose. Time is of the essence, and the runaround that the Tehran Three have gotten from the mullahs has meant that we have lost at least nine months in doing anything to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran instead of Iraq? The Iraq critics would have done nothing about either country. There would today be two major Islamic countries sitting on an ocean of oil, supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction - instead of one.

Two years ago, there were five countries supporting terror and pursuing WMDs - two junior-leaguers, Libya and Syria, and the axis-of-evil varsity: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The Bush administration has just eliminated two: Iraq, by direct military means, and Libya, by example and intimidation.

Syria is weak and deterred by Israel. North Korea, having gone nuclear, is untouchable. That leaves Iran. There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities.

The country should be ripe for revolution. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike.

Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away - in Iraq.
====================================================

Frankie, if you catch this thread I'd be interested in your take on this. I read Krauthammer pretty often but this strikes me as a more aggressive piece than he normally writes.

How close are the Iranians to becoming fully loaded?

I would have to presume that Israel would have to be the aggressor and pull the trigger the minute any fuel rods are delivered. Since the UN and the Frogs would rather dance to Muslim music than care what happens to Americans.
This begs a serious geo political question. WTF, would Russia, recently a bent over victim of naked barbarism of the like not seen since Hitler, would EVER EVER FUGGING willfully deliver those rods?

alanm
09-25-2004, 09:22 PM
This begs a serious geo political question. WTF, would Russia, recently a bent over victim of naked barbarism of the like not seen since Hitler, would EVER EVER FUGGING willfully deliver those rods?Personally I don't think Russia would ever make good on the delivery. I fear North Korea or India would help out more than Russia. You just know Israel will be scrambling bombers the second Iran produces weapons grade material.

Frankie
09-25-2004, 10:27 PM
Frankie, I thought I'd bump this thread rather than create another.

I have found a good article that seemed related to the thread. With the mullahs hanging on to power and the fact that they desire nukes (I don't think I'm exagerating on that point but, if so, you can counter it I'm certain) this article talks about helping along the revolution. Letting it gain it own momentum etc.

This one from the Heritage Foundation was pretty good. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm298.cfm)

It relates because ofThis article from the Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/25/2004&Cat=4&Num=026) in which Kharrazi states that Iran is persuing a reactor for civil purposes. He then goes on to describe what a '"Powerful Iran" would do if the facility were bombed.

Since you have relatives or contacts in the area I'd appreciate your take on this stuff every few months or so since Iran is going to be in the news a lot while the reactor goes on line.

How do native Iranians feel about the possibility of the mullahs having weapons grade plutonium? Or even the ability to sell it to AQ types?

It does put the Iranian population at risk does it not?

Hey Irish,

Ironically I'm just back from another dinner party (I see my last participation on this thread was before a dinner party! Just call me a party animal!.. When it comes to eating anyway;) ). It's funny you should bump this up tonight. This thing with the Shahab missle, the boast and the whole nuclear power thing was a hot topic of discussion. Among all the sarcasm and the disappointed headshakes we were almost unanimously of the opinion that the regime in Iran actually WANTS an attack on its facilities by either Israel or the U.S. in order to domestically re-solidify their power that's been eroding. During (at least the early stages of) the Iran-Iraq war two very obvious things happened. (1) There was a renewed sense of patriotism that united most everyone behind the regime that was fast becoming unpopular due to the hostage situation, terrible economy and excessive militancy. (2) For the duration of that war the quieting answer to any questioning of the regime's policies was, "We are in a war!.. Hardship is to be expected." A dramatic turn of events, the regime has learned, would distract from the domestic hardships and create another cause. I have not yet read the articles you linked in you post (though I glanced over the second one quickly) and I'm planning to go to bed shortly. I'm very curious to read them in detail.

Dave Lane
09-25-2004, 11:00 PM
BS. Iran would crumple about as fast as Iraq. Only they would take more casualties. The US could hit them in a 3 pronged attack. If you think about it we have Iran surrounded on 3 sides. They have no place to run except the former Soviet Republics or Pakistan. Denise whether you believe it or not this is one of the primary reasons for being in Iraq. Iran is the main goal in fighting terrorism. Their days are numbered. Payback for all the trouble they've caused over the years and the Hostage crisis in 1979 will be paid in full. Payback will be a MoFo for Iran.


You are insane or I hope you are kidding NO one is this crazy!

Dave

Dave Lane
09-25-2004, 11:02 PM
Hey Irish,

Ironically I'm just back from another dinner party (I see my last participation on this thread was before a dinner party! Just call me a party animal!.. When it comes to eating anyway;) ). It's funny you should bump this up tonight. This thing with the Shahab missle, the boast and the whole nuclear power thing was a hot topic of discussion. Among all the sarcasm and the disappointed headshakes we were almost unanimously of the opinion that the regime in Iran actually WANTS an attack on its facilities by either Israel or the U.S. in order to domestically re-solidify their power that's been eroding. During (at least the early stages of) the Iran-Iraq war two very obvious things happened. (1) There was a renewed sense of patriotism that united most everyone behind the regime that was fast becoming unpopular due to the hostage situation, terrible economy and excessive militancy. (2) For the duration of that war the quieting answer to any questioning of the regime's policies was, "We are in a war!.. Hardship is to be expected." A dramatic turn of events, the regime has learned, would distract from the domestic hardships and create another cause. I have not yet read the articles you linked in you post (though I glanced over the second one quickly) and I'm planning to go to bed shortly. I'm very curious to read them in detail.


You can't say that we are at war!!

Dave