At what point in Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb are we justified in attacking?

[casdave]

Since Alberta is not in a strategicly hot position, and since it has no beef with the US, the US has no beef with it.

Unconfirmed? I thought it was well known that the Iranian President wants to wipe Israel off the map. How is that unconfirmed? You tell me you will destroy me why should I sit around and wait for you to do it?

Is that really the whole reason that the US is coonstructing a case against Iran ?
or perhaps it is the unconfirmed reports that Iran is pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons programme, other readers will understand what I was saying, you are simply selecting a meaning that suits your purpose.

Then why haven’t the US invaded Alberta yet? If it is just about oil as you claim?

I am fairly sure that Alberta has not yet threatened to cut off oil supplies to the US, mainly because Alberta needs the US more than the US needs Alberta, and they are surely not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Iran might well be prepared to sink its own economy to hurt the US, but then, that is their right to do so.

I believe at present there are no Albertans who are currently incarcerated in US torture centres without charges, or even any credible evidence of wrongdoing.

The US exerts it power across the world for its own purposes, power can be applied in many ways, for much of the world its through the economy, in others the US does it militarily.

Iran may say all sorts of things, but the US does too, where the heck did all those WMD go ? Why would anyone in that region of the world believe any statement made by the US given its lies, given the revolutions and overthrows it has sponsored.

The questions are not why Alberta has not been invaded, the question is why does the US presist in creating client states through murder, support of dictators, invasion etc.

Alberta has nothing like a similar duynamic, and it is somewhat credualous to try make any kind of meanigful comparison.

Albertans have no reason to fear or hate the US, now try it with Iran and Iraq, or many other Arab nations, because for whatever reason, its beyond question that the US is despised in these parts of the world.

[Carnac_the_Magnificent]

Should the US unilaterally attack Iran, one thing is certain: It will radicalize Iran for another 50 years, making extremists of moderates and bitter cynics of pro-western factions. When Iran acquires the bomb–and it will–there will be hell to pay. That said, my guess is that Iran’s ruling circle is praying for a US attack.

Win-win for them, lose-lose for us. Familiar ring.

[Sailboat]

@astro

What’s the most appropriate measure to use for determining when the use of military force is necessary & justified in stopping Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb?

Maybe we can skip actual invasion with diplomatic overtures. Have our leaders tried meeting personally with hotheaded Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? High-level contacts can do wonders.

What if Vice President Cheney were to take this fellow quail hunting? They could work things out.

Sailboat

[Uzi]

@casdave

Since Alberta is not in a strategicly hot position, and since it has no beef with the US, the US has no beef with it.

Why is Iran in a strategicly hot position? Is it because of its oil? Alberta has oil.

I am fairly sure that Alberta has not yet threatened to cut off oil supplies to the US, mainly because Alberta needs the US more than the US needs Alberta, and they are surely not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

So, if Iran cuts off oil it will no longer have money. I’d believe that the Iranians would all voluntarily immolate themselves before they willingly stop the flow of money.

Iran might well be prepared to sink its own economy to hurt the US, but then, that is their right to do so.

They would stop selling oil and not hurt the US economy to any significant extent.
Iran doesn’t sell oil to the US. They sell most of it to Europe and Asia. The US buys most of its oil from other places.

Oil imports to the US

I believe at present there are no Albertans who are currently incarcerated in US torture centres without charges, or even any credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Lots of Iranians incarcerated in US ‘torture’ centers? Where’d they find these Iranians if they do exist? Did they smuggle them out of Iran?

Iran may say all sorts of things, but the US does too, where the heck did all those WMD go ? Why would anyone in that region of the world believe any statement made by the US given its lies, given the revolutions and overthrows it has sponsored.

Ever notice that the people in charge of these countries are actually from the country they rule? So, once they are in power what is stopping them from ruling with something other than an iron fist?

The questions are not why Alberta has not been invaded, the question is why does the US presist in creating client states through murder, support of dictators, invasion etc.

That’s what I’m asking you. I think I’ve demonstrated that it can’t be all about oil as the US can get oil regardless of which dictator is in power in the ME. So, what are they there for?

Alberta has nothing like a similar duynamic, and it is somewhat credualous to try make any kind of meanigful comparison.

When you claim it is all about oil, I am demonstrating that it can’t be all about oil. Frankly, I’d much prefer to invade Alberta if I had a choice. It might be colder, but it has nice scenery and the citizens aren’t likely to strap bombs to themselves and blow up civilians in local cafes.

Albertans have no reason to fear or hate the US, now try it with Iran and Iraq, or many other Arab nations, because for whatever reason, its beyond question that the US is despised in these parts of the world.

Yes, Alberta has no reason to fear the US. WHY IS THAT? What is different between Alberta and Iran? Could it be the Alberta/Canadian government doesn’t want to start WW3? Huh, just maybe that could be it? It ain’t just about oil as I think I’ve proven here. So what is it?

[treis]

Alberta’s oil is tied up in Tar Sands and might not be economically feasible to extract. The MEs oil resources are proven and are economically feasbile to extract. Thats a huge, huge difference.

Are either of you (Sam Stone and Uzi) going to acknowledge that the U.S. overthrew Iran’s elected leader, Supported a corrupt dictator for the next 30 years and then gave biological and chemical weapons to a country that had invaded them?

[ParentalAdvisory]

@tomndebb

Never.

Ten guys are standing around with butcher knives. 9 of them are peaceful, 1 has openly stated that he will kill the other nine for not believing in the tooth fairy. He’s dead set on it too. Should the other nine stop him?

[Sevastopol]

@ParentalAdvisory

Ten guys are standing around with butcher knives. 9 of them are peaceful, 1 has openly stated that he will kill the other nine for not believing in the tooth fairy. He’s dead set on it too. Should the other nine stop him?

.We wil bury you!.

[Sam_Stone]

@treis

Alberta’s oil is tied up in Tar Sands and might not be economically feasible to extract. The MEs oil resources are proven and are economically feasbile to extract. Thats a huge, huge difference.

Are either of you (Sam Stone and Uzi) going to acknowledge that the U.S. overthrew Iran’s elected leader, Supported a corrupt dictator for the next 30 years and then gave biological and chemical weapons to a country that had invaded them?

First, there was a cold war on. The geopolitical situation was very different, and the Soviet Union was engaged in proxy wars and signing up Arab countries for their side. The U.S. had to play that game or risk ceding the middle east and the world’s main oil supply to a hostile power.

Second, I’d like a cite that shows the U.S. gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons. Other than the U.S. dept of agriculture giving Iraq samples of anthrax and other products as part of a program that gave the same stuff to many countries around the world.

[treis]

@Sam Stone

First, there was a cold war on. The geopolitical situation was very different, and the Soviet Union was engaged in proxy wars and signing up Arab countries for their side. The U.S. had to play that game or risk ceding the middle east and the world’s main oil supply to a hostile power.

This is a pretty striking difference from this statement:

@Sam Stone

Here’s an easy formula to avoid invasion by the U.S: Don’t invade your neighbors. Don’t oppress your people. Don’t scream ‘Death to Israel’ and develop nuclear weapons. Don’t support terrorism.

It seems you neglected to add, “Don’t get in the way of the U.S. geopolitical ambitions” to the list of things that could provoke a U.S. invasion. Its not as though there has been a change in the significance of the Middle East’s oil supplies. We are just as dependent, if not more so, on them as we were in the 1950s when we installed the Shah, or the 80s when we assisted Iraq.

Right now, the United States is making threatening noises towards Iran. They have a history of intervention in Iran’s domestic affairs, and aiding Iran’s enimies. Not to mention that they are in control, with a large military force, to the East and West of Iran. Now, you are a citizen of Iran, or one of their leaders. You have an enemy surrounding you and making threatening noises. Why in the world would you give up the one thing that could defend your nation? Why in the world should they? On top of that, you are telling them that they have to admit spies into their country. Only an idiot would agree to that.

@Sam Stone

Second, I’d like a cite that shows the U.S. gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons. Other than the U.S. dept of agriculture giving Iraq samples of anthrax and other products as part of a program that gave the same stuff to many countries around the world.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. “The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide.”

link

Now, you may think that we just up and decided to give farming aid to a country with whom we had no diplomatic relations. I, on the other hand, find it extremely hard to believe that was the motivation. What is much more likely, is that we believed Iran was our enemy, and decided to arm the nation that had invaded them.

[Uzi]

@treis

Alberta’s oil is tied up in Tar Sands and might not be economically feasible to extract. The MEs oil resources are proven and are economically feasbile to extract. Thats a huge, huge difference.

The cost of getting oil out of the oil sands is probably around 12 a barrel vs. 3(?) in the ME. Lets see: 60 - 12 = $48 dollars. Yep, pretty profitable. I remember the first company I worked for producing heavy oil for that same cost and making a profit at it when oil was a whole lot cheaper than it is now. The issue with tar sands oil is the up front cost. It takes billions to build the infrastructure. Kind of like the North Sea. It takes time for the infrastructure to get to the point that you are producing oil in large quantities. The technology is there to give us the second largest reserves in the world right now. Once the technology improves, which it probably will, we will have the largest reserves.

Right now, the United States is making threatening noises towards Iran. They have a history of intervention in Iran’s domestic affairs, and aiding Iran’s enimies. Not to mention that they are in control, with a large military force, to the East and West of Iran. Now, you are a citizen of Iran, or one of their leaders. You have an enemy surrounding you and making threatening noises. Why in the world would you give up the one thing that could defend your nation? Why in the world should they? On top of that, you are telling them that they have to admit spies into their country. Only an idiot would agree to that.

If you were a citizen or a leader in Iran, why in the world would you be making agressive noises that and acting crazy with that large a force at your doorstep? I think you’d want to talk softly so someone doesn’t use a big stick on you. Let me make this plain. Lose the revolutionary zeal, ditch the ‘crazy’ clerics, act rationally, and no one would have a reason to bother you. That way you get to sell your oil peacefully, or as much as you care to, and spend the money you get from it to the benefit of the people of Iran. It is funny how very few of the leaders in the ME seem to think about their people in terms other than how to control them to their benefit.

[Nietzsche]

@Sam Stone

First, there was a cold war on. The geopolitical situation was very different, and the Soviet Union was engaged in proxy wars and signing up Arab countries for their side. The U.S. had to play that game or risk ceding the middle east and the world’s main oil supply to a hostile power.

Fair enough, but it would be wise to remember actions have consequences and that there will be a price to pay. People are not pawns to be played in others bullshit political games.
It would also help if the U.S. doesn’t go doing exactly what the “bad guys” are doing if they keep trumpeting that they’re the good guys. Iran wasn’t in any danger of falling into Soviet control and there was no reason to do what they did.
And not to get sidetracked here, but when did the USSR go fomenting coups in Arab countries? If the Arabs wanted to cozy up to the Russians, it doesn’t mean the Iranians have to have the Shah and SAVAK stuffed down their throat.

Second, I’d like a cite that shows the U.S. gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons.

cite

Here’s a US Senate transcript on the matter

And before BrainGlutton beats me to it, here’s the Wiki…

Link
Tons of links on the bottom of the page to other sources.
Don’t play coy.

In regards to the OP’s question of what point should you attack, I say now is as good of a time as any. We’ve been hearing about how Iran is “just around the corner” from the bomb for the past 20 years. This is supposedly one of the reasons why there have been sanctions. Ironically, this is what has forced the Iranians to go to the black market to acquire their nuclear technology. Yet, where’s the proof? There have been UN inspectors combing the country for the past two and a half years and the only thing they’ve found is that Iran simply doesn’t have the infrastructure to enrich enough uranium to make a bomb. They closest thing they’ve found to anything even military related was how a device (once actually made) can be made into a warhead and mounted on a missle. That’s great, but without the machines that put the boom in the boom, it’s useless and hardly proof of anything justifying sanctions, let alone a war.
In the meantime, not only has there been almost no assistance from the IAEA in Iran’s nuclear research as promised under the NPT, they’ve been under constant threat from Israel and the US, and now Europe. If I were Khamenei, I’d tell the UN to place that NPT in the rather dark region of Dr. Elbaradei’s backside.

[treis]

@Uzi

The cost of getting oil out of the oil sands is probably around 12 a barrel vs. 3(?) in the ME. Lets see: 60 - 12 = $48 dollars. Yep, pretty profitable. I remember the first company I worked for producing heavy oil for that same cost and making a profit at it when oil was a whole lot cheaper than it is now. The issue with tar sands oil is the up front cost. It takes billions to build the infrastructure. Kind of like the North Sea. It takes time for the infrastructure to get to the point that you are producing oil in large quantities. The technology is there to give us the second largest reserves in the world right now. Once the technology improves, which it probably will, we will have the largest reserves.

Regardless, the point is that the MEs reserves are much more valuable than Alberta’s. You are talking about, at best, 4 times the extraction cost for oil in Alberta versus Canada.

@Uzi

If you were a citizen or a leader in Iran, why in the world would you be making agressive noises that and acting crazy with that large a force at your doorstep? I think you’d want to talk softly so someone doesn’t use a big stick on you. Let me make this plain. Lose the revolutionary zeal, ditch the ‘crazy’ clerics, act rationally, and no one would have a reason to bother you. That way you get to sell your oil peacefully, or as much as you care to, and spend the money you get from it to the benefit of the people of Iran. It is funny how very few of the leaders in the ME seem to think about their people in terms other than how to control them to their benefit.

So, the answer is that you will not acknowledge the intervention of the U.S. before any sort of revolutionary or “crazy” clerics. That is unfortunate, and reflects poorly on your honesty in this debate.

[Der_Trihs]

@Uzi

If you were a citizen or a leader in Iran, why in the world would you be making agressive noises that and acting crazy with that large a force at your doorstep?

To shore up your support base, and because it doesn’t matter what you say or how you act; America will invade if and when Iraq stabilizes. Iran’s behavior is irrelevant.

@Uzi

I think you’d want to talk softly so someone doesn’t use a big stick on you.

Appeasement of greedy, malignant conquerers doesn’t work; only sufficient force. In this case, nukes.

@Uzi

Let me make this plain. Lose the revolutionary zeal, ditch the ‘crazy’ clerics, act rationally, and no one would have a reason to bother you.

Oil. Religion. PNAC. Revenge for daring to stand up to us, instead of groveling like they are supposed to. Nothing Saddam did stopped the invasion of Iraq; nothing short of nukes will stop the invasion of Iran if Iraq stabilizes.

@Uzi

That way you get to sell your oil peacefully, or as much as you care to, and spend the money you get from it to the benefit of the people of Iran.

But then we wouldn’t have control of the oil, or acess to the profits, or yet more no-bid contracts for Haliburton and so forth.

[Uzi]

@treis

Regardless, the point is that the MEs reserves are much more valuable than Alberta’s. You are talking about, at best, 4 times the extraction cost for oil in Alberta versus Canada.

Like it has always been. Some places cost more to produce than others. Which is why at $60 oil billions are being invested.

So, the answer is that you will not acknowledge the intervention of the U.S. before any sort of revolutionary or “crazy” clerics. That is unfortunate, and reflects poorly on your honesty in this debate.

Yeah, so. Seeing the median Iranian age is 24 years old how many remember the Shah, so what is your point? Do I hold grudges against Germans and Japanese for WW2?

Honest in this debate? Who can’t admit that if the Iranians stopped acting like loons they wouldn’t have a problem anymore? The US doesn’t make them act like loons, they do that all on their own. I would suggest they stop worrying about what the US will do and concentrate on their own problems at home.

[Der_Trihs]

@Uzi

Yeah, so. Seeing the median Iranian age is 24 years old how many remember the Shah, so what is your point? Do I hold grudges against Germans and Japanese for WW2?

Are the political descendents of Hitler still in power in Germany ? Your analogy doesn’t work.

@Uzi

Who can’t admit that if the Iranians stopped acting like loons they wouldn’t have a problem anymore?

Because they would. Nothing Iran does short of getting nukes will deter an invasion.

@Uzi

I would suggest they stop worrying about what the US will do and concentrate on their own problems at home.

That would be completely irresponsible of them, not to mention probably suicidal. The greatest danger facing the Iranian leadership ( and population ) isn’t internal; it’s the greed and malice of America.

[Uzi]

@Der Trihs

To shore up your support base, and because it doesn’t matter what you say or how you act; America will invade if and when Iraq stabilizes. Iran’s behavior is irrelevant.

It is a wonder that you live in the US given the trust you exhibit towards your fellow countrymen.

Appeasement of greedy, malignant conquerers doesn’t work; only sufficient force. In this case, nukes.

Oil. Religion. PNAC. Revenge for daring to stand up to us, instead of groveling like they are supposed to. Nothing Saddam did stopped the invasion of Iraq; nothing short of nukes will stop the invasion of Iran if Iraq stabilizes.

Saddam could have done one thing that would have stopped any invasion dead in its tracks. He could have stepped down. Yet he preferred to see his people killed so he could hopefully stay in power a few moments longer.
Iran can stop an invasion (assuming there ever would be one) dead in its tracks by not acting like nutbars. If they are so pissed and afraid of the US why is it they insessently say they are going to destroy Israel? What does this have to do with protecting themselves from invasion?

But then we wouldn’t have control of the oil, or acess to the profits, or yet more no-bid contracts for Haliburton and so forth.

Once the Iraqi government is stable they will choose who gets contracts and who to sell to. Just like every other country in the ME. Geez, learn a little bit about the oil industry will you? If you truly believe this why hasn’t the US invaded Saudi Arabia? More oil there and the Saudis pretty much control all the oil through Aramco.

[Sam_Stone]

Nietzche: None of your cites says that the U.S. gave Iraq Chemical or biological weapons. Iraq was given pesticides, which could be used as a precursor to making chemical weapons. It was also given Anthrax strains through the commerce department, which were intended for agriculture use and which were NOT weaponized.

Now, you can make the argument that it was stupid of the U.S. to give that stuff to Iraq, and I wouldn’t argue. But there is a fundamental difference between this and turning over actual chemical or biological weapons.

[Uzi]

@Der Trihs

The greatest danger facing the Iranian leadership ( and population ) isn’t internal; it’s the greed and malice of America.

Uh, yeah. Okay then, kind of hard to argue with that logic…
Anyhoo, so, why do they insist on continually calling for the destruction of Israel who has little capability of doing anything to Iran, nor has shown the inclination of doing so?

[treis]

@Uzi

Yeah, so. Seeing the median Iranian age is 24 years old how many remember the Shah, so what is your point? Do I hold grudges against Germans and Japanese for WW2?

Well, I am 20, don’t live in Iran and I know all about the British and U.S. shenanigans regarding Iran. I get the feeling that this sort of information is pretty central in their schooling, and that my counterpart in Iran also knows about the shenanigans.

@Uzi

Honest in this debate? Who can’t admit that if the Iranians stopped acting like loons they wouldn’t have a problem anymore?

Becuase, unfortunately as history has shown, that is simply not the case. They were not acting like loons when the U.S. and Britain overthrew their government. They were not acting like loons when the U.S. supported the corrupt Shah for 25 years. They were not acting like loons when they were defending their country against Iraq. They have oil and are, justifiably, virulently anti-American in their foriegn relations. That places them squarely in the target of the U.S.

@Uzi

The US doesn’t make them act like loons, they do that all on their own. I would suggest they stop worrying about what the US will do and concentrate on their own problems at home.

Look, I am not defending Iran’s actions in regards to Israel or their domestic policy, but that is not the reason they are facing possible U.S. action. I mean, we have a genocide going in Dafur that is basically being ignored by the U.S. There are plenty of dictators scattered around the globe that have a worse domestic situation than Iran. Why is Iran under the threat of invasion, but not these other countries?

The answer is, of course, oil. I am not saying that the U.S. ought to go around disposing every dictator and intervening in every war in which war crimes are happening. In fact, I think that would be an extremely unwise course of action. Nor am I saying that securing the Middle East’s oil reserves from anti-American dictators is necessarily a bad idea. Although, I do think that the current, and past, courting of dictators and other corrupt leaders will, and probably already is, haunt us in the future. All I am saying is let us be honest with why we care about Iran, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Its becuase of oil, and to a lesser extent Israel. If those two things were there we wouldn’t care any more about the Middle East than we do about Africa.

[treis]

@Sam Stone

Nietzche: None of your cites says that the U.S. gave Iraq Chemical or biological weapons. Iraq was given pesticides, which could be used as a precursor to making chemical weapons. It was also given Anthrax strains through the commerce department, which were intended for agriculture use and which were NOT weaponized.

Now, you can make the argument that it was stupid of the U.S. to give that stuff to Iraq, and I wouldn’t argue. But there is a fundamental difference between this and turning over actual chemical or biological weapons.

You got a cite for the deweaponized Anthrax? Becuase the cite that I (and Nietzsche) cited said that this Anthrax was a “key component” of Iraq’s biological weapons program.

Regardless, I can’t believe that there is even an argument about this. We had zero diplomatic relations with Iraq before 1982. In fact, they were on our list of countries that sponsored terror. Reagen had to fight to get them off of that list to send them this aid. Plus, we were providing them money and military intelligence on Iran. Now, you’re telling me that we, actually what are you telling me? That we accidentally sent them chemicals, computers, equipments and viruses that laid the foundation of their WMD programs becuase we thought they were going to use them elsewhere?