that said, in keeping with today godfather theme, it appears that g-dub, unlike michael at the italian restaurant, is coming out of the men’s room with nothing in his hand but his dick…
I know Japan and Germany (and of course all of the official nuclear weapon states) produce their own fuel, and I would imagine that that is the norm for any country that depends on nuclear power for any sizable precentage of thier power production (after all, why would any nation want to have part of thier energy infrustructure “on loan” from a foreign power if they didn’t have to?).
Which of course explains why domestic enrichment is allowed in the first place. If the US just produced all the fuel used in the world, the risk of proliferation would be far less, but no one would sign such a treaty.
Iran is suggesting it may supply the insurgency in Iraq. That way it can feed measured ‘pain and harm’ to the US through its forces there and thwart its investment. It is an optimum scenario for Iran and the worst-case for the US. There is an effectively unlimited supply of volunteers on the Iraqi side of the border prepared to use whatever aid Iran offers, how and when they offer it. Iraq has a low cost means to shape its formerly dangerous neighbour in a favourable way. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
By contrast, the US is not in a position to escalate the conflict to include Iran. Moreover even if the will was there, the uncertainty such action would bring to global oil prices prohibits it.
What is this predilection with thinking Iran might sponsor terrorism. They already do and are definitely in Iraq. So much so I am not sure they could ramp it up much more anyway without being truly overt about it.
I’m hoping all this “harm and pain” talk is just an attempt at political face saving, but I’m not sure enough to bet anything on it. Iran may not have the weaponry to attack directly, or the power to seal off the sea, but they sure could step up terrorism if they chose. It’s a bad situation, and could get worse.
I don’t know if I’m going to say that Iran definately supports terrorists in Iraq based on an MEK linked website making a claim based on the word of a single unnamed dissident.
Oh c’mon! The leading state terror sponsor in the world has one of its greatest foes next door in Iraq trying to spread democracy and secularism in a country formerly dominated (politically) by Sunni Muslims while Iran is dominated by Shiite Muslims. I am SURE they are just sitting idly by to see how things turn out :rolleyes: .
How about this:
They may feel no need to go to the effort, since the results of our actions are likely to be a Shiite theocracy; Iran II. So far, we couldn’t have done better if we were actively trying to serve Iran’s agenda in Iraq.
And as an aside, it’s high debatable that we’re trying to “spread democracy and secularism”; push American corporatism and Christianity is more like it. Not to mention attemt to set up a puppet government.
Reminds me of that great hit single from circa 1979…
♫Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran♫
♫Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran♫
That was my point. As much as I hate to admit it, Iran has every reason in the world to demand that it be allowed to supply its own uranium needs. Still, we don’t have to react to Iran the same way we’d react to, say, Belgium wrt uranium enrichment programs.
No, because there are other established nuclear powers besides the US.
The leading state terror sponsor in the world
I must respectfully urge the primacy of a competitor to the title. At best, Iran is the second leading state terror sponsor.
The leading sponsor (by the way, a jealous competitor) is us. We will kneecap pretehders like they were Nancy Kerrigans
Not really; we tend to spread terror directly, instead of sponsoring it. “Shock and Awe”, remember ?
- a puppet government.*
why do you hate japetto? **why do you hate walt disney??**are you a shill for the wetware lobby? who are you working for???
Once again, these are not sources with primary evidence. Instead they are all making statements or quoting politicians who have said that Iran is sponsoring terrorism. If said politicians could actually prove that, don’t you think they would supply some evidence? About two months ago, for example, a bomb killed two British soldiers in Basra and was stated to have been supplied by the Iranians by, yes, Jack Straw. The British Press (and the Iranians) effectively said “prove it”. Those allegations swiftly died away.
Of course there will be people crossing the border from Iran to join the insurgency (the same is true of all the other countries bordering Iraq), but to state baldly that the Iranian government is actively pouring resources intp stoking the insurgency seems an unreasonable leap. I will admit, however, that such involvement seems likely, given previous Iranian policy- but it hasn’t yet been proven.
On the other hand, of course, if they already are, then what could they do to make things worse?
And as for bombing all nuclear facilities into the ground- not really possible, given that the Iranian nuclear program is believed to have gone underground and dispersed following the attempt to do exactly that by the Israelis in- oh, 197-something? And of course, if you want to bomb people for violating nuclear treaties, the US would sure to be first on your list. (Violating SALT’s I-III, violating the Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty by giving weapons to Israel, violating the AABM with Son of Star Wars…the list goes on)
Well, don’t forget the support for the Taliban, repressive regimes, etc. etc. Some of which continues to this day.
I was thinking of sponsor kind of like Twenty Mule Team Borax sponsored Reagan.
This interval of intercommunal bombing brought to you by the State Department, in association with Rumsfeld Productions and Arbusto Partners, a very limited partnership…
also, we are not without actual clients, as long as Iyad allawi is on the steets, and there’s a schoolbus somewhere needing a good bombing…
it is a matter of some difficulty for me to understand how a country is obliged to seal its borders against people leaving, whatever their purpose in doing so.
I mean, what about," Mr. Ahmedinajab, tear down this wall…"
so now what would the Great Communicator say, “Mr. Assad, twenty feet higher if you please…”?
My assessment of the Iranfocus site is that it is at best a propaganda front and at worst a hate site:
Good grief. But what is MEK?
Seems to me highly doubtful/impossible for the UN to have a referendum on regime change, since I think that part of the UN charter explicitly denounces attempts to change governments by military intervention. No cite, but I recall reading it in a book recently.
MEK is our terrorist org. (in a curious bit of self-abuse (yuk yuk) we both fund AND blacklist the Mujaheddin E Khalkh)