| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Yup what a fine target... it's what we like to call a target rich environment... |
| 2006-08-26 |
| An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes. The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — or face economic and political sanctions. Tehran has called the U.N. Security Council resolution "illegal" and said it won't stop enrichment as a precondition to negotiations. Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the heavy water plant is "one of the biggest nuclear projects" in the country, state-run television reported. He said the plant will be used in the pharmaceutical field and in diagnosing cancer. The plant's top official, Manouchehr Madadi, said the facility has the ability to produce up to 16 tons of heavy water a year. |
| Posted by:Blackvenom-2001 |
| #24 #9 Angomort Whereng8886: "Anyone think short ass suffers from small man syndrome(Inferiority complex)?" It's not a complex - he actually is inferior. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-08-26 23:29 |
| #23 Only problem with an immediate attack is that there is not the political will for it, either in this country or international. And before someone says it, that is not the fault of this administration : the media have been in full deep-throated screaming about how the Arabs and Iranians are being picked on by the "neocons", and how the Iranians just want to feel safe with their own set of nukes. Half of the media operated as Hizb'allah's press release office during the recent war in Lebanon, and the other half is harpying on the poor little Muslims being picked on in the West, and how they are just reacting to Western racism and oppression. The President may well decide to take the bullet of impeachment to protect the country, but he would be as idiotic as his detractors claim he is to not try to set the world stage correctly before making his move. That is why the November elections in this country are so damned important, we need to backhand the quislings into submission so that the West can defeat the Islamofascists BEFORE we get a city nuked. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-08-26 20:38 |
| #22 Any attack on Iran will have to be done either under imminent threat of nuclear attack on us or with electorate and preferably also international support. There remains a significant problem in that if we are "under imminent threat of nuclear attack", then Iran already has acquired nuclear weapons and the camel is now sleeping in the tent. Iran's mere possession of nuclear technology means that the camel's head is already inside the tent. Deputy speaker Mohammad-Reza Bahonar's recent declaration "that Tehran may develop nuclear weapons as a "preventative measure" against threats posed by the West" is the final straw. Iran is now utilizing the exact strategy that actual possession of nuclear weapons would permit them to employ against regional and doctrinal foes. The mask of their true intent has finally been torn away and little speculation is necessary to guess the final outcome. Iran's historic and intolerable sponsorship of international terrorism, intervention in Iraq and overt threats against Israel all point towards certain disaster should they acquire nuclear arms. Many people I know continue to delude themselves that Ahmadinejad's bellicose tirades are merely for public consumption. With today's announcement, nothing but the absolute very worst can be expected from Iran. As the old saying goes; "He who hesitates is lost." I believe the moment of hesitation is now past. While I can appreciate your circumspection vis economic impact, with Iran's theocratic government on a runaway course, some sort of economic fiasco is inevitable. It would be far better to trigger it now in a more limited (and easier to contain) respect than permitting Iran to disrupt the entire Middle East's regional stability with the waving about of actual nuclear arms. The prospect of an exceptionally poor steward of military power, like Iran, assuming the undue, unearned and unmerited authority conferred by accession to nuclear weapons goes beyond horrific. There is zero indication that they would do anything but begin proliferating nuclear weapons technology throughout the Islamic states (as they have avowed) and the consequences of that all point towards at least limited, if not intermediate scale nuclear war. The astronomical economic impact of this final scenario dwarfs into microscopic insignificance all that goes before it. It is for these reasons I feel that immediate military intervention in Iran is of the utmost necessity. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-26 20:13 |
| #21 I don't face the incredible burden of choosing whether or when to attack Whether to attack will end up being decided by you and every other voting American this November. By then it will be the issue on the ballot in every federal contest. When will be the choice of those we elect. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-26 19:00 |
| #20 Zen, my own opinion is that there is a terribly narrow window within which a strike on Iran will have more positive than negative effects. Bush has to balance the likelihood that Iran is near having nuclear weapons against the very real possibility of a global depression that would make the 30s look like a minor economic bump in the road. That's my take on the impact of a major war involving the oil countries. I read a lot of comments at Rantburg that seem to assume the US is pretty strong and self-sufficient, militarily and economically. There's a lot of truth in that, and I firmly believe our strength grows from our Constitution and our traditions. But my old b-school training kicks in when I read the financial news. And what I see is that we are doing okay, but we do have some substantial vulnerabilities economically. Any attack on Iran will have to be done either under imminent threat of nuclear attack on us or with electorate and preferably also international support. We're closer to the first than I'd like, but we're not there yet. And we're closer than we were to the second, but not there yet either IMO. That's just my muddled opinion. I have absolutely no data other than the public news accounts to go on. What worries me - and I would lay odds worries Bush as well - is that the intel may not be much clearer. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-08-26 18:53 |
| #19 Zenster...I like your ideas! Sometimes one has to do the "hard" things in order to save more lives later. iran is directly responsible for 1000s of deaths including a hand in most of the killings of US military in Iraq. I have a vested interest as I am a navy reservist on the bubble to become a sand sailor...and a son who will be in theater as a USMC officer within the year. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-08-26 18:43 |
| #18 Prayers for all concerned are about all I can offer. lotp, you strike me as a reasonably intelligent individual. This leads me to believe that you are capable of arriving at some sort of considered opinion that goes well beyond any indecision regarding the economic impact of attacking Iran. I, for one, would definitely wager that the global impact of a single Iranian nuclear attack, be it upon Israel, the USA or Europe would have much farther reaching consequences than any pre-emptive action we might take now, even if it were done unilaterally. I'd really enjoy hearing your own personal views regarding this if you care to share them. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-26 18:07 |
| #17 The administration surely has this in mind. But they also need to consider the economic impact on us and on Europe of when/how/where they take down the MM nuclear weapons program. I am frustrated it's still active, worried about possibilities and fervently grateful I don't face the incredible burden of choosing whether or when to attack on the basis of inadequate info. Prayers for all concerned are about all I can offer. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-08-26 17:52 |
| #16 Keep yelling, 'mouse. You're making a lot more sense than any of our politicians right now. Using kinetic weapons delivered by stealth platforms we could almost disguise such a raid to look like multiple point failure in their gasoline refining infrastructure. If this was sufficient to instigate massive economic upheaval, then our job would already be half-done. If not, proceed to phase II and begin crippling their nuclear sites. Phase III, if required, should involve decapping their leadership and military capabilities. We could implement any of these phases in less than a 24 hour period without putting a single boot on the ground. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-26 17:44 |
| #15 I'll keep yelling. We do not have to stop the nuclear program. We only have to take out the gasoline refineries and terminals. For all of their oil, iran imports almost 75% of their gasoline. It would take only a handful of strategic sorties and iran would come to a complete halt. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-08-26 17:13 |
| #14 He said the plant will be used in the pharmaceutical field and in diagnosing cancer. Nothing says Persian like a heavy water enema. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-08-26 15:17 |
| #13 We could kill all the Persian scientists with angry thoughts or rods from god or Aurora the Black Helicopter from Heck. But I prefers Agent LeiRoy tasteless, colorless, odorless amd envionmentally friendly. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-08-26 14:04 |
| #12 'moose, that's just downright sneaky. I love it! |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-26 12:32 |
| #11 Sounds like a job for the Norwegians Like Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner (Norway's Finest Son) |
| Posted by: jay-dubya 2006-08-26 12:19 |
| #10 Why, that's just devious, Moose. Methinks I like the cut'o'yer jib... |
| Posted by: jay-dubya 2006-08-26 12:16 |
| #9 Anyone think short ass suffers from small man syndrome(Inferiority complex) |
| Posted by: Angomort Whereng8886 2006-08-26 11:32 |
| #8 Sounds like a job for the Norwegians Too bad, that they're (mostly) on the other side. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-08-26 11:12 |
| #7 Sounds like a job for the Norwegians. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-08-26 11:00 |
| #6 Glad yer on our side 'moose! |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-08-26 10:50 |
| #5 In this case, frustration instead of destruction may be the key. All that would need be done would be to smuggle in a small amount of deadly chemical or toxin, to vaporize within the facility. Something that just a few ppm could kill you in a week or two. Once dispersed inside the facility, anyone who went in there without protection would die in a week or two, likely from liver failure. They would lose an s-load of scientists, technicians, and political types who visited. And decontaminating the facility could take several years. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-08-26 09:59 |
| #4 I really don't care where we vaoprize him. Just do it soon. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-08-26 09:51 |
| #3 He'll go back, Frank....he'll go back. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-08-26 08:11 |
| #2 time to take it out was when the dwarf was there |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-26 07:57 |
| #1 He said the plant will be used in the pharmaceutical field and in diagnosing cancer. Good. He can start by "diagnosing" the cancer that is theocratic Islam. What? You're the master race? FOAD. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-26 07:57 |