Cheney pushes Bush to take military action v. Iran

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Squink]
What’s all this talk about Iran having a nuclear weapons program? They certainly have an enrichment program, but I’ve not seen any hard evidence that they’re shooting for the highly enriched stuff you need to make bombs. Sure, John Bolton was publicly wetting his pants a couple years ago, telling us we were all about to dissolve in a sea of Iranian nuclear fire, but what with gas rationing in Iran I think we can all now see that Iran has a legitimate interest in atomic power.
[/QUOTE]

To be sure. North Korea and Pakistan ALSO have legitimate interests in atomic power. India too. And I’m sure as a nice side effect Iran will ALSO use their nuclear program for power to the people…

-XT

62

[QUOTE=xtisme]
:rolleyes: I wonder if people who’s side you are nominally on ever cringe…
[/QUOTE]
Do you ever cringe when you talk about ‘Iran’s nuclear weapons program’ as if it’s an established fact? You should.

63

[QUOTE=Squink]
Do you ever cringe when you talk about ‘Iran’s nuclear weapons program’ as if it’s an established fact? You should.
[/QUOTE]

Nope…I never bat an eye. YMMV, but I’d say that its pretty obvious.

-XT

64

[QUOTE=Voyager]
How odd that a claim that no one is directly proposing an invasion gets so much discussion - but not a lot of evidence.
[/quote]
What does evidence have to do with it? The OP proposed that Cheney is pushing for an invasion of Iran based on nothing but some unsourced allegations. The Usual Suspects fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and then crawled into the boat and started trying to jimmy the bait box.

Now we have made it all the way to “we are going to nuke Iran” based on nothing more than we had six months ago, and a year ago, and two years before that.

Sorry about that.

I must be regressing. :slight_smile:

Regards,
Shodan

65

Out of curiosity Squink (and since it relates to the thread), could you tell me why you think Iran’s nuclear program is wholly peaceful? My reasons are pretty straight forward for my own position on this, and seem reasonably logical (i.e. why build it when they have vast reserves of natural gas, and gas fired power plants are a LOT cheaper, why go for enrichment thats not needed for power generation, why not take the Euro’s up on their myriad offers to put non-weapons grade plants in country and toss in goodies beside, why all the secrecy when full compliance with the NPT would be so easy and gain them more than butting heads with, well, everyone, etc etc ad nausium)…but what convinces YOU that they are sincere in their assertions of peaceful intent?

Surely its not because they haven’t come right out and said they were developing nukes (they wouldn’t, would they?), or because the IAEA hasn’t (yet) found a smoking gun (without full access its rather doubtful they will…which is the point of secrecy)? Something else (maybe because Bush et al say the sky is blue…and this after the debacle in Iraq with our intelligence there)? Too many parallels with Iraq maybe?

I’m curious as to your reasoning…and also why you think that my own position is comparable (for general ground shakeyness) to that generally espoused by friend Der Trihs on this subject.

-XT

66

[QUOTE=xtisme]
We negotiate with people…and we have allies. Allies that still trust us in fact.
[/quote]
Suuuuure we do.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Saddam never tried to negotiate in good faith…that was part of the problem. Agreed that the message we sent in Iraq wasn’t the correct one (this might be the first time in GD that you’ve actually said something I think is at least quasi-correct…enjoy the moment. :stuck_out_tongue: )
[/quote]
In what way ? He did everything short of shooting himself ( not that that would have kept us from invading ). The lesson of Iraq is that to cooperate with America is death.

67

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Suuuuure we do…
[/QUOTE]

I would have said “Cite?” but the principle is the same. From whence, friend XT, this wholly reassuring news?

68

[QUOTE=elucidator]
I would have said “Cite?” but the principle is the same. From whence, friend XT, this wholly reassuring news?
[/QUOTE]

Um…that we have allies? That we negotiate with people (a.k.a. other nations)? I’m not even sure where to begin on how to cite that. Its like asking me to cite that water is wet. Perhaps one of you could show me a cite on how we no longer HAVE either of those two things?

Or maybe you simply want a cite that our allies still trust us? Well…the fact that they still ARE our allies would be a good indication of this. Unless you don’t believe we do of course…in which case we are back to water being wet.

-XT

69

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Nope…I never bat an eye. YMMV, but I’d say that its pretty obvious.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not at all obvious. The same crew who told us they were certain about Saddam’s WMD’s is now telling us Iran is a nuclear threat. Due diligence is called for in assessing the facts in this serious matter, not a simple ‘gut check’.

70

[QUOTE=Shodan]
What does evidence have to do with it? The OP proposed that Cheney is pushing for an invasion of Iran based on nothing but some unsourced allegations.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I must have missed something. Where does the OP talk about an “invasion” of Iran? The article linked in the OP refers to “military action,” not invasion per se.

Do you mean to say you don’t believe Cheney has been pushing for military action (of any variety) against Iran? I’m just trying to understand your position.

71

[QUOTE=Squink]
It’s not at all obvious. The same crew who told us they were certain about Saddam’s WMD’s is now telling us Iran is a nuclear threat. Due diligence is called for in assessing the facts in this serious matter, not a simple ‘gut check’.
[/QUOTE]

Well, thats fair enough. I suppose the fact that the Euro’s are also looking a bit skeptical at Iran’s claims is in the same boat.

So, for your part its simply that there is no conclusive proof that Iran has military intentions? Combined with the (IMHO valid) skepticism that Bush et al are the ones making the militant claims about Iran?

-XT

72

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Um…that we have allies? That we negotiate with people (a.k.a. other nations)? I’m not even sure where to begin on how to cite that. Its like asking me to cite that water is wet. Perhaps one of you could show me a cite on how we no longer HAVE either of those two things?

Or maybe you simply want a cite that our allies still trust us? Well…the fact that they still ARE our allies would be a good indication of this. Unless you don’t believe we do of course…in which case we are back to water being wet.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Deftly evaded, sir! A near-perfect veronica, slipping the horns of a dilemma by a hair’s breadth, the crowd gasps!

So, if understand you correctly, our question is impertinent, as it is one of those things that simply “everybody knows”. So we are obligated to offer* counter*-cites before you need offer your own? Hardly seems fair.

And its a puzzlement, I admit. Seen lots of international polls, last several years, can’t really say I ever drew the conclusion that we were beloved of the nations. Well, I have to say, XT saw different evidence. Hence his conclusion, that we are widely trusted amongst our allies.

Is it one of those “gut” things, like Chertoff? Or if they haven’t filed for divorce, we are happily married?

73

[QUOTE=xtisme]
So, for your part its simply that there is no conclusive proof that Iran has military intentions?
[/QUOTE]
That little smidgeon of highly enriched uranium the UN found a few years back turned out to be contamination on used centrifuge parts they bought from Germany.
As far as I can tell, their current enrichment program is consistent with a civilian power program. That’s not to say that it might not also be consistent with a bomb program, but we’ve no hard evidence for that. Some might say that the military involvement in the program, its secrecy, and the use of hardened sites prove Iran’s ill intent, but you must grant that the Ayatollah has reason to be nervous.

The UN gave us pretty accurate information about the threat posed by Iraq back in 2003. Why not see what the IAEA has to say about Iran’s nuclear program after the next round of inspections, before deciding that Iran has a bomb program?

IAEA, Iran agree visit at disputed reactor site

Tehran Times: Iran will spare no efforts to clear up ambiguities on nuclear program

74

[QUOTE=elucidator]
So, if understand you correctly, our question is impertinent, as it is one of those things that simply “everybody knows”. So we are obligated to offer counter-cites before you need offer your own? Hardly seems fair.
[/QUOTE]

No evasion. I asked several questions as to exactly what you WANT a cite for. To be sure, I asked directly for my own cite as well. In reasonably plain language.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
And its a puzzlement, I admit. Seen lots of international polls, last several years, can’t really say I ever drew the conclusion that we were beloved of the nations. Well, I have to say, XT saw different evidence. Hence his conclusion, that we are widely trusted amongst our allies.
[/QUOTE]

Um…no. I never said we were beloved. I said we still have allies…and that being the case (unless you are disputing it), it stands to reason that SOME level of trust still exists. If you are questioning what level I’m sure I can dig up something as to the current relations between the US and NATO, say, or our relations with the various European nations. IS that what you are asking for?

[QUOTE=Squink]
That little smidgeon of highly enriched uranium the UN found a few years back turned out to be contamination on used centrifuge parts they bought from Germany. That’s not to say that it might not also be consistent with a bomb program, but we’ve no hard evidence for that. Some might say that the military involvement in the program, its secrecy, and the use of hardened sites prove Iran’s ill intent, but you must grant that the Ayatollah has reason to be nervous.
[/QUOTE]

Sure. I concede that to date there is no hard evidence. I concede that the theocracy as well as the secular government (such as there is a division) in Iran has reason to be nervous. Perhaps you will think about the other side of the coin however…there is reason for the US and the Europeans (as well as Iran’s neighbors, especially Israel) to ALSO be a bit nervous about their nuclear program…especially when they have so many secrets. If their program is wholly peaceful with no military applications I fail to see WHY they would want to go about it in the manner they have.

No physical evidence to be sure…but there are some real questions here that the Iranian’s seem bound and determined NOT to answer.

[QUOTE=Squink]
The UN gave us pretty accurate information about the threat posed by Iraq back in 2003. Why not see what the IAEA has to say about Iran’s nuclear program after the next round of inspections, before deciding that Iran has a bomb program?
[/QUOTE]

I’ve read it, but thanks for the link. No where in there do they state that Iran does NOT have a weapons program…only that, as you say, there is no physical or direct evidence for it.

As for your other link, I hope Iran DOES do its best to burn off the clouds of secrecy wrt its nuclear program and operate above board from now on. I for one do NOT want the US to even get involved in any kind of military adventure in Iran…even that of limited air strikes or tomahawk tossing. Our collective plate is, IMHO, full. I hope they DO decide that there is no real reason for weapons grade enrichment for a peaceful power program and they decide to fully comply with the very real concerns not only of Mad Bush and his Merry Men but of the Europeans as well. My only problem is…they have said this kind of thing before and thus far no joy. Talk is cheap. Maybe the threat of a few carrier battle groups will get them off the dime…or maybe their program really IS peaceful as you say and they simply need to ensure everyone understands that by opening things up so everyone can see that for themselves.

-XT

75

xtisme, you talk as if acting like a superpower means that we have to flex our muscles and bully other countries. Any kind of attack should be absolutely a last resort after every other measure has been exhausted.

Even if Iran does eventually develop nuclear power and maybe in time they develop nuclear weapons, why does that then necessitate their destruction? We learned to survive with the Soviet Union armed with nuclear weapons.

What happened to the emphasis on diplomacy? Has anyone had Cheney’s testosterone level checked? Give these people some estrogen shots. Congress needs to be anticipating what these clowns may pull next.

All of the rational arguments in the world for why we can’t attack or invade Iran are absolutely no good when you consider who is in charge and how long it would take to even temporarily relieve them of their duties. Can Congress do that BTW?

76

[QUOTE=Zoe]
xtisme, you talk as if acting like a superpower means that we have to flex our muscles and bully other countries.
[/QUOTE]

Thats what being a superpower MEANT. Today what it means is more along the lines of ‘world policeman and enforcer of the west’. Obviously thats pretty ill defined there, but essentially thats what being America means…or is supposed to mean. We have certainly gotten off the track with that in Iraq…but essentially if we don’t provide the muscle then there isn’t anyone else to enforce peace throughout the world.

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Any kind of attack should be absolutely a last resort after every other measure has been exhausted.
[/QUOTE]

As we haven’t attacked Iran yet, and as I’m not advocating attacking them tomorrow I’m not sure I get your point. We ARE exhausting all the diplomatic angles. The Euro’s have been doing the good cop routine for quite a while now…and we are by no means at the end of that rope yet.

At some point however (a year from now? 2? 5? who knows…) we will indeed have exhausted the diplomatic option. Then what? Bow our collective heads and let Iran do its own thing? Be a bit too late to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle if we do that. Exactly what we SHOULD do however remains a mystery…to me.

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Even if Iran does eventually develop nuclear power and maybe in time they develop nuclear weapons, why does that then necessitate their destruction?
[/QUOTE]

Well…it doesn’t. Nor did I say it does. Destruction? Christ on a crutch. I’m not advocating ANY kind of military action at this time and you are strawmanning ‘destruction’?!?

[QUOTE=Zoe]
We learned to survive with the Soviet Union armed with nuclear weapons.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, we did. We didn’t have any choice though. We learned to live with North Korea having nukes too…and Pakistan. This doesn’t mean this is an optimal situation however. The more nation states with nukes the more likely someone sometime is going to fuck up and use them…or get pushed to the wall and use them. Or get pissed off and use them. Or have their government go tits up and SOMEONE use them.

[QUOTE=Zoe]
What happened to the emphasis on diplomacy?
[/QUOTE]

Well, what do you suppose the US and Europe has been doing for the past 2 to 3 years wrt Iran? I haven’t noticed any military strikes, and I’ve seen a lot of back and forth talkage, so I would assume this indicates that the emphasis on diplomacy as you put it is still on. No?

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Has anyone had Cheney’s testosterone level checked?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t even want to THINK about that…

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Congress needs to be anticipating what these clowns may pull next.
[/QUOTE]

What could they do about it? The President has the authority to launch limited strikes into Iran if he so chooses (afaik). And yet…the clowns haven’t actually DONE that, despite the hand wringing by the OP for the past 2-3 years over this very subject.

Why?

[QUOTE=Zoe]
All of the rational arguments in the world for why we can’t attack or invade Iran are absolutely no good when you consider who is in charge and how long it would take to even temporarily relieve them of their duties.
[/QUOTE]

Well, invading Iran is a lefty fever dream by folks who don’t understand the first thing about projection of military power. Simply put we don’t gots it.

As to the rest I disagree…there ARE certain circumstances where the US needs to engage in limited military strikes. Clinton certainly did in Iraq…and we may yet have to in Iran. We simply aren’t at that point yet…IMHO. Diplomacy hasn’t been exhausted. Yet. When it has…well, I don’t know, to be honest. I’m in an uncomfortable position for a quasi-isolationist…

-XT

77

[QUOTE=xtisme]
What could they do about it? The President has the authority to launch limited strikes into Iran if he so chooses (afaik). And yet…the clowns haven’t actually DONE that, despite the hand wringing by the OP for the past 2-3 years over this very subject.

Why?
[/QUOTE]

Because Bush has no political capital?

Because there hasn’t been an act of war by Iran?

Because Iran is not an “imminent threat” to the US?

Because Iran hasn’t obliged Bush with a Gulf-of-Tonkin style incident, despite the US slathering its navy along Iran’s coast?

Because it is Congress (still) that has the power to declare war?

Because Bush (with justification) fears impeachment if he acts unilaterally?

Because he lost his Republican majority in Congress?

Because Iraq has been a festering wound?

Because none of our allies (save Israel) would support a strike against Iran?
None of that means the administration isn’t still looking for an opening.

78

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Thats what being a superpower MEANT. Today what it means is more along the lines of ‘world policeman and enforcer of the west’.
[/quote]
No, it means “being corrupt, a liar, a bully and murderer”, as we see in Iraq.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
At some point however (a year from now? 2? 5? who knows…) we will indeed have exhausted the diplomatic option. Then what? Bow our collective heads and let Iran do its own thing?
[/quote]
Yes. It’s not our business. And, frank, if they don’t want nukes they are both stupid and derelict in their duty to the Iranian people.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, invading Iran is a lefty fever dream by folks who don’t understand the first thing about projection of military power. Simply put we don’t gots it.
[/quote]
You mean like how it was crazy to believe that these maniacs wouldn’t lie to get us into a war in Iraq ? And what makes you think the fact that invading Iran would be a disaster would stop these people ? Assuming that they just don’t use nukes; the Bushites are rather nuke-happy. And if they want to try to terrorize the ME into submission with shock and awe, and don’t care about casualties or world opinion, why not use nukes ? I could see Bush launching a nuclear strike on Iran and pardoning everyone involved, including himself. He’s insane enough to try that.

79

[QUOTE=Shodan]
What does evidence have to do with it? The OP proposed that Cheney is pushing for an invasion of Iran based on nothing but some unsourced allegations. The Usual Suspects fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and then crawled into the boat and started trying to jimmy the bait box.

[/quote]

Do try to read the OP again. BG said military action, a phrase well supported by the cite. Neither he, nor the cite, said anything about an invasion.

Did you read Hersh’s article? The main gist of it was that the Bushies were putting a nuclear attack on the the Iranian nuclear facilities on the table, a place where the military didn’t want it to be. He did not say an attack had been decided on, let alone was imminent.

I understand how disappointed you are that your right wing heroes turned out to a pack of incompetent boobs, but you really can do better than putting words in people’s mouths.

80

[QUOTE=Voyager]
BG said military action, a phrase well supported by the cite. Neither he, nor the cite, said anything about an invasion.
[/quote]
You did. So did most of the rest of you.

My rule of thumb is that when the Usual Suspects begin lying about what is posted right in front of us, the discussion value of a thread is gone. Perhaps I’ll check back later to make fun of your posts.

Regards,
Shodan